Should the West end its wars? | Head to Head

chasing al-qaeda from Afghanistan hunting down Saddam Hussein across Iraq bombing Colonel Gaddafi out of Libya could Syria be next we'll have Western powers lost their ability to win wars abroad my guest tonight thinks they didn't always achieve what they set out to do but won't admit failure nicknamed Darth Vader by his men general Sam Mike Jackson was Britain's top soldier during the invasion of Iraq I'm Maddy Hudson and I've come here to the Oxford Union to go head-to-head with General Sir Mike Jackson over the West's military track record from Kosovo to Kabul I'll be asking him if Western powers have a right to intervene in faraway countries and where the humanitarian and strategic objectives can ever be reconciled I'll be joined in this discussion by three experts Frank led which a former British military intelligence officer turned author and anti-war activist Nadeem Shahar D a Middle East specialist at the foreign policy think-tank Chatham House and Deborah Haynes defense editor of The Times of London ladies and gentlemen our guest tonight General Sir Mike Jackson thanks for coming General Jackson we're talking about some of the big conflicts tonight Iraq Afghanistan Libya Kosovo on what basis do you think the West gets to intervene in these places in the first place by what right I mean British and American governments have troops stationed in hundreds of countries across the world and a lot of people say why who made them the world's policeman nobody other than perhaps circumstance he's not just the West but it's fair to say I think that only the West has that ability to influence events far from their own Shores I think lying behind your question is should they be doing this rather than well it's always going to be controversial in some cases more so than others it's taking a strategic deployment yeah about being able to do this yes Syria is one country which is in a real mess there's been a great deal of talk about military intervention whether it's doable possible you are one of Britain's best known generals if David Cameron the Prime Minister came to you and said Mike Jackson what should we do in Syria is there a military intervention would work what would you say to him probably not - why because we are now seeing the sectarian war in the Middle East that's between Sunni and Shia and I did think this is necessarily a place where Western intervention is is going to help I don't think it will necessarily my own personal dis can we leave it better than we found it one of the reasons why public opinion in the West is so hostile towards intervening in Syria is the legacy of Iraq that's still there hanging over a lot of this is it true by the way that you became head of the British Army a month before the invasion yeah that's a baptism of fire indeed get the top job just as we go into well I had the number two job before so one was completely involved you were ready to go more than you talked about leaving things better than when you found them do you think the Iraq war was worth it we will never know because we did it what we will never know is what Iran would have been like had we not and had Santa masane and his two revolting sons continued in pretty bestial behavior we will never know even despite the civilian death toll the sectarian strife the regional instability the failure to find weapons of mass destruction you still think it was the right thing to do is right wrong to me is is far too it's far too simplistic do you mean legally right that's that's part of your question so you believe the war was legal at the time in 2000 I did and yet Kofi Annan said it was illegal the UN secretary-general the Dutch government in theory said it was illegal I'm sure many launched the national lawyers did say was many and many said it was the other way and what was your basis for saying it was legal I took my own view in the light of indeed the Attorney General's second opinion in this country and if you had come to the conclusion as many others did that it was illegal that it was a violation of international law would you have refused to obey the orders given to you as a senior officer in the armed forces of a mature democracy such as we are fortunate enough to be in yes your job is to give your military advice is to explain how a political objective might be achieved wholly perhaps unlikely but partly by the use of military force but if that advice is not taken or its overruled or whatever your constitutional position is actually clear you either bite your lip and get on with it or you say you'll have to find somebody else to do this so I'm asking you would you had you believed it was illegal would you have said I'm not doing this I'm not having had I believe sir I'd have had no choice between 2003 when we went in in 2011 when British troops pulled out can you tell me how many Iraqi civilians were killed by British bombs or bullets I didn't number composure were to be established can you give me an estimate nope why not because I don't know shouldn't you know I think it's impossible to distinguish who killed whom in a very messy and difficult situation I don't know do you think army should do body counts an American general family said we don't do body counts there are lots of estimates from epidemiologist lots of medical journals say - million Iraqis were killed that's an astonishing no idea of the evidence for that when you see those numbers how does that make you feel why are you driving up the sort of cost-benefit of interventional and casualties I don't look at it like that and it's it's simply not possible evaluate all was a good thing or a bad thing or right or wrong if you don't know how many innocent people died in it how can I possibly judge overall whether a person in Iraq and Iraq II was killed because he was or she had taken up arms against the occupying forces whether it was sectarian whether it was by accident and they happen it is impossible for me to categorize casualties in that way or I put you anybody else and yet we judge a lot of of our enemies a lot of people we don't like Bashar al-assad we're happy to judge their civilian death tolls were happy to count up how many people have died in Syria and here and there but not our wars we don't put in words into my mouth which I have not used okay before we go to our panel anyone else one more question about Iraq which is the treatment of prisoners which was a very controversial subject the abuse torture of prisoners in US custody and in British custody did you know what was going on in Iraq at the time what you mean is the alleged widespread no I didn't say anything about know what was going on so in Iraq hooding went on we know that hooding went on which was banned in the 1970 was lies behind drill Krish did you know hooting was going on in Iran no I did not did you know that sleep deprivation techniques were being used why not because you have known as a head of the army what certain people were doing members of the Armed Forces did you guys I suspect they didn't want it to be known themselves any breach of the Geneva Convention due process of law must follow I'm not trying to excuse or condone any such behavior but did the army under your command and talk about the army as a whole as a as a body with an ethos and a culture did it do enough to prevent those things from happening clearly we did not do enough okay well let's go to our panel Deborah Haynes is the defense editor of The Times of London she reported from Iraq on the ground for several years do you think it's too black and white to judge the Iraq war as a failure or a success as General Jackson says I can speak from my perspective before the invasion happened the I listened to what our government was saying and I as a human believed that it was the right thing to do to go and intervene to sort of rid this awful dictator and free this country but then having lived in Iraq and seen the the descent into chaos and the inability of our government in the u.s. to implement a meaningful plan it undermined our whole the whole meaning of intervention because what we left at the end is not better than what was there at the beginning and Nadeem Shahadah Yura Associate Fellow at the foreign policy think-tank Chatham House in London you hail originally from Lebanon would it be fair to say that the Iraq war did a great deal of damage to regional stability I think that a future historian looking at the Iraq invasion will not look at 2003 onwards one would look at the Western policy from 91 onwards or even from 1980 for example the iran-iraq war with one and a half million dead did not help with sunni-shia relations and in the same time allowing Saddam giving him the green light in fact in 1991 to Massacre his people we're in a month he killed as much as Bashar al-assad in in three years was also did not help with Sunni Shia or Sunni Shia relations so the sectarianism you saw after the removal of Saddam it's a consequence of what Saddam did we for and who actually allowed him to do before okay let me bring in Frank led wedge who's a former military intelligence officer who served in Iraq in Afghanistan and the Balkans and has since written two very critical books about those conflicts when General Jackson says it's very difficult to do kind of body counts and it's very hard to work this out and therefore to make a judgment call is that view you sure we have a duty under international law to ensure that we do keep tally as far as possible those civilians we've killed we've never done that who doesn't of course in Northern Ireland but northern islands in our own country no effort was made to do that in Iraq or Afghanistan general you went around the boy as you would put it concerning a definition of success we may have a problem in defining success but we don't really have a problem in seeing failure in defeat when we when we see it and we see it in Basra General Jack keen a four-star American general said gentlemen he said you let us down in Iraq you let us down badly it's also a feeling general that's very very prevalent in officers such as myself mid ranking officers who have gone through these wars and have seen failure and mismanagement after failure and mismanagement we skedaddled from Basra tails between our legs and left it to the Americans but one thing which really irks many of us is it generals such as yourself appear before the Iraq inquiry 34 generals not one of them was willing or able to say yes this was my baby I take responsibility for success or failure let generals have to come back to that who do you think should take responsibility if not yourself then who well in the sense that your point being that somebody somewhere got it wrong I think that's what you're saying isn't it I mean the Indus a high responsibility but I was a head of the army of course one is was responsible in the broad sense but anyway I mean I left in 2006 all right up till 2006 then were you responsible for the fiasco that Basra Basra turned out to be until charge of the nights no I wasn't who was the operational commander and I was not do you accept Frank Lapidus describe you know the chain of command as well as I do do you accept frankly I know there are several trains have comes you accept his description that we skedaddled from Basra I wouldn't use that language myself but it wasn't the proudest of moments in British it was very difficult Basra a city of 2 million 2 million same sizes Birmingham you and simply for reasons which we could go into in my view the force levels were inadequate for the nature of the tasks which got more complicated after the summer of 2003 we're putting a lot of emphasis at the moment on the military dimension to an intervention there's political economic humanitarian and if we forget the other parts we will get a skewed and distorted analysis because the non-military dimensions of that campaign were not properly thought through nor were the military implication in a campaign would beg to differ ok let's talk about the war in Afghanistan which is ongoing Afghanistan I think many people would say is far from a victory to find a winning divine your victory okay well defining victory being defeating the Taliban have we done that no destroying al Qaeda have we done that not in Afghanistan perhaps yes building and building a democratic nation it's better than it was much better ok and educating women perhaps yes far far better in unite well it's time we really mustn't keep you mustn't keep putting to me these biased questions there is a balance always a balance yes and you're looking at the downside yes be very nice you're looking at the upside well of course because I have to well balance of course so let's take your balance look maybe you came say haven't you done well with women's indication let's start again start again unbiased women's education is much better than it was but Afghans government is much better than it was we have seven five thousand British troops still there 70 thousand US troops and yet despite the progress on women's rights you have suicide bombings up civilian casualties up heroin production up corruption up I would say it's not biased I think it's just fair to say that if you look at the balance sheet Afghanistan is not doing well at all and we failed in our major goals you're saying it's very imperfect indeed it is but has it improved has life got better for the majority of Afghans and I believe that it has now is it sustainable that's the big question I don't think there's any dive that life has got better at what stage do you say the costs are too high even if it's got a little bit better we've been there for 13 years do we need to say 20 30 40 years at what stage do you say the cost in blood and treasure has been too high for the little that's been achieved well the prize was a huge strategic prize and let's not be in any doubt about that which was which was to prevent the Taliban regime ever giving suffer again to international terrorists or closer to al-qaeda now than they've ever been we now have a Pakistani Taliban that specializes in suicide bombings as a result of that invasion yeah indeed so there's a big really big difficulty with the whole of the region is not just Afghanistan and what's going on within Islam itself but that's not what we're here to talk about on that subject a lot of experts say the interventions like Afghanistan as being over there is what prompt them to come over here ie it's a Western military presence to acts as a recruiting sergeant I entirely accept that is a position to be taken and but you reject it you don't share the view you you use this very emotional language I reject it I listen to it and I think about it do you agree with it it's not emotional it's very simple question do you agree whether the Western military interventions provoke terrorist attacks and my help it may do but I do not see this is cause and effect necessarily let you name when you look back at the history of Afghanistan since 9/11 do not forget that ice after the international force was set out by the Bonn conference with Afghan representation posts the fall of the Taliban this was done by consent I mean the implication that it's always a heavy-handed West knocking doors down willy-nilly is I think not borne out by the fact it's a view that was recently expressed by the President of Afghanistan our friend and Ally Hamid Karzai who said the British should never have deployed to Helmand it was a waste of time he said a lot of things which I think many people would disagree with yeah slightly awkward when the person you're saying is representative of the new Afghanistan thinks yes she did a bad job and weren't needed well the good president our Afghanistan seems to shift his ground shall we say from time to time Frank led would you was shaking your head as Michael Jackson was ever speaking about Afghanistan when we got there in 2006 Helmand is a relatively stable society run by a combination of tribal gangs and drugs cartels which made about something in the region of 20 percent of the world's heroin now it makes 50 percent of the world's heroin somewhere between 10 and 30 thousand people have died in Helmand in the most savagely violent province in the world's most corrupt country of course we haven't counted the number of civilian dead now if that can be characterized in anything other than epic fail one would like to see that characterization but you're talking about Helmand where where the British were leash where we lost 450 men killed thousands yeah but but you might want to think about the connection of Helmand to Afghanistan as a whole it was a it's a bit like you're Basra peace Britain Basra it wasn't it was a large coalition Iraq now if one area disaster didn't as well as others so be it the reason so be it is your answer to I'm not giving you the three thousand cameras everywhere and both Basra and Helmand had particular problems which distinguish them from the rest of the country when we arrived in do you think the British military failed in Helmand the province they went into secure in 2006 they have failed to produce what we said I to do which is a safe environment they have not achieved that so that's a failure I'm not going to concede that point they didn't fail this seems to be kind of taught what you said let's talk plainly let's talk plainly is it not a failure to not achieve to do what you set out to do and to lose hundreds of people's lives in the process I'm not going to accept that it's a complete failure now Deborah so Mike there's a good concession there of accepting the fact that Helmand we haven't achieved what we set out to achieve and that's the strongest I've ever heard you acknowledge that in fact the impact of Helmand and Iraq on the UK public and the US public is this massive loss of trust and I think that's going to have a terrible impact on future interventions Micra seeing in Syria at the moment if we take counsel of all of that and say okay next time when there may be of strong strategic moral whatever both perhaps case to become involved we're not going to do it because because of Helmand because of Basra we will be I think stepping into considerable danger one war we did get involved with was Libya post Iraq and Afghanistan which was a relative success in comparison but even in Libya let me throw a biased question at you it took the world's greatest military alliance in human history eight months to topple a tin-pot dictator in a tiny developing country we're just not very good at winning wars these days that is so simplistic IRI and don't know where to start start wherever you like well the first thing is we were told it would take days by President Obama I didn't recall but lots of things take longer than you think I'm certainly intervention is not gonna be here by Monday morning or anything like it and anybody's been around for a while knows that Libya was very measured application of force the Prime Minister was kidnapped the Interior Minister dodged an assassination attempt some of the militias that the West allied with some of the I've tended to turn out to be jihadist militias controlling vast raids of the country it's not the greatest place to live even Human Rights Watch which is a verse to humanitarian interventions wasn't great on the good dog no agreed but isn't that the point isn't that your point about making sure things are better when we go in your point early human rights what says the country is sliding deeper into lawlessness it's not the greatest evaluation of a conflict no it isn't it's particularly Western I think I'm particularly immediately whenever I became say that everything must be achieved by tomorrow morning well it's not going to be I'm reminded but let's dead lighten it for 30 seconds I'm sure is anecdotal but there we are talking about the French Revolution Nixon says that you and I tell mr. chairman what is your judgment of the historical significance of the French Revolution to which our for a moment Chou Enlai said mr. president it is far too early to tell on that note we're going to have to take a break join us in part two where I'll be asking general Jackson about his experiences and his accomplishments in Northern Ireland and in Kosovo and we'll be hearing from our audience here at the Oxford Union that's after the break welcome back to head to head on al Jazeera my guest tonight is General Sir Mike Jackson we've been talking about Iraq and Afghanistan Libya I want to kick off this part of the program by talking to you about Northern Ireland the conflict that happened in this country the so called troubles that lasted around three decades you served three tours of duty I believe in Northern Ireland six years and all on this program sitting in that very chair not long ago Martin McGuinness the former IRA commander who's now the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland he said to me and I quote he joined because the British Army an occupying army came on to the streets of my city and shot citizens dead before the IRA ever engaged in any combat whatsoever what's your response to him it is true that the British Army used force lethal force at times against citizens in Northern Ireland mostly within the law there are again some exceptions to that which I can that I absolutely abhor but when you when you look at the number of basically soldiers but some airmen and sailors as well who serve in normal and over those three plus decades I think the record is pretty good and indeed Martin McGuinness is part of the population the so-called Nationalists welcomed the arrival of the British Army in the same way that many Afghans may have welcomed the British domain and is it is there a kind of is there a crossover point that you can say that where the British Army deploys in recent years there has been this blowback effect where the actions of some British troops enables your opponents to recruit better more easily I think that's a very narrow analysis and in many cases the wrongdoings were not did become public for long time I think it's a very ok well one that one day we would know I need to say something else about it we keep talking about the use of the military as standalone in the vacuum we've we've got to do better than that you and I have got to do better than you referring to the political role as well the political dimension the economic dimension and humanitarian damage and yannis but you can't talk about it in isolation and in in an intervention the politics and the use of force have got to be absolutely hand-in-hand where Northland is concerned there were no real politics you were there in Northern Ireland on the ground in 1972 yeah infamously on Bloody Sunday when 13 civilians were killed by British paratroops a few years ago you offered a quote fulsome apology to the families of the victims for those killings but you also said it should be seen in the wider context of context that you elaborated on that most of the British troops didn't carry out abuses that there were provocations some people in the nationalist community think that apology didn't go far enough because you added that caveat it wasn't fulsome I said what I said and I stand by it would you not give an unconverted stared at what I said and I stand by it we've all moved on have we not so do you thank heavens we have the Good Friday Agreement everything that went on before is imperfect inevitably under great strain at times but what I'm very proud of is that the British Army basically was able to hold a space open for the politics to come good even though it took so long you talk about pride would it be fair to say that your proudest moment as a soldier was the Kosovo war and the 78th day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia would you say that was a success and something that you're very proud of it was my last time in command in the field which is really what any soldier worth his salt is wanting to do and I believe we were able to achieve pretty largely that which was set high to achieve which was to prevent further abuse of the civilian population by the Serb forces to return refugees to their home and to start to build a new Kosovo with a secure environment nato still bombed bridges bombed power stations bombed television studios with makeup artists inside Amnesty International accused NATO of committing war crimes during that conflict cluster bombs were used there's some pretty nasty things on our side of the balance sheet mistakes were made it wasn't a mistake it was deliberate toggling but no one ever said that the television studios that were blown up in Belgrade was a mistake we were told that that was a propaganda unit that needed to be taken out your innocent civilians died in it you need to read Geneva Convention as in some circumstances our messes of propagating propaganda so Amnesty International were talking nonsense when they said their work they have their main crimes they have their view I stick by the Geneva Convention Frank led which what do you make of the legacy of wars like Kosovo in relation to Afghanistan which you're such a critical well first of all it has to be said that the general played a superb role in the Kosovo campaign he was he's quite right in a conventional war such as that mistakes will be made perhaps the legacy of Northern Ireland and Bosnia and Kosovo and perhaps even all the campaigns for the British army look look taking several steps back is that we believed we were capable of more than we probably were and the legacy of that or the immediate legacy of that in my view is is failure in Basra and Helmand we took on a lot more than we could chew Deborah Haynes your defense correspondent you cover wars wars like Iraq and Afghanistan which are considered relatively failures though general Jackson doesn't like to use the word as somewhere Houston it feels to me as though the British military is very bad at learning lessons who is culpable for failure you never seem to get get that so my worry is in the future when you do look back there aren't going to be those lessons learned that are required in order to have more successes like Kosovo and less failures like Iraq Nadeem sorry very briefly other one yes acting in it at a time when it was right to act should not be judged by the outcome what you have to judge is whether the failure to interact to intervene in such places is also more good we have not intervened in a place like Kosovo General Jackson is it true connection did you really tell Wesley Clark the u.s. general in charge of NATO at the time and I believe your superior that when he told you to block off Russian troops that Kosovo Airport you're taking your memoir of Iver well he said I did so I take his word for it and had you blockaded that airport that runway do you think we would have been at war with the Russians I've no idea I wasn't prepared to take a risk which had nothing to do with what we were about in Kosovo it wasn't worth any such risk you would nicknamed macho Jack Owen or the British press so we pleased the British press make many misjudgments that's probably one of them a few months ago the former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said cuts to the British defense budget and our armed forces would limit the UK's ability to play a major role on the world stage and would undermine the UK's quote unquote special relationship with the United States do you share his fears his concerns we are heading now for the smallest armed forces we've had since the thirties at least is that wise in a troubled uncertain world where the unexpected is around the corner I have considerable caution thereby does it diminish Britain in the special relationship in the way that mr. gates said you know I don't think it does probably the nature of the stress relationship is as much about the political nature as as hard power as well let's go to a very patient audience in gentleman over here as an Afghan I feel really really bad in heard that we are forgetting the sacrifices in the the suffering of Afghan people the so-called war and terror twelve thirteen years ago it was nothing to do with Afghanistan the reason the international community of the u.s. NATO intervene was because of Osama bin Laden he was found next door the Taliban was supported still supporting in will be supported by next door hundreds and thousands of life had been lost so I don't know why we intervene what is what was the main objectives and what was the main reason well why are we leaving now people like myself I meant refugee at the age of fourteen I had to leave my family because of the occupation of NATO and American forces thank you there is much in that question it is a it is a know I mean the dimensions to it very considerable and go much wider than Afghanistan without doubt al-qaeda were defeated after that first intervention with with the Northern Alliance on the ground but they were not destroyed and they find soccer in in Pakistan so you're right the question is much wider why did we go there in the first place the narrow reason since the Taliban regime would not remove al Qaeda itself the narrower reason was to kick the al-qaeda out of Afghanistan but then it grew it grew rapidly and why didn't the West just leave then because it was deemed that the West having intervened it should then do what it can to take Afghanistan from an authoritarian and sectarian regime to a modern democracy and we failed in that objective it is a great great challenge Afghanistan is on the way we have not failed in the way you insist on putting it so dramatically we have not yet achieved confuse that your refusal to define failure and then you say failure is a dramatic result dramatic where you set an objective you don't meet the objective it's a failure violence is up as I mentioned we're not leaving behind a less violent country we're not left behind a much better educated country a country for example you put this in black and white and I won't have that okay we'll have to agree to disagree on that let's go to a question at the back lady there in the glasses with our handout right in the middle of to my right I was wondering if you really want to end the wars because for me it seems we go we produce weapons chemical weapons we sell those weapon to other countries such as Syria and then you go there and say oh you're not allowed to use them so do you see it as kind of responsibility again this is entirely a political question feel free to answer it yeah I know I know but I'm not a politician no just a former head of the army who surely has some views on this yes I did think in an uncertain world again to say to deny that Britain should ever sell a weapon overseas is frankly naive what we haven't always got right is to whom we sell them and I accept that okay let's come back to questions here lady here in the front row just wait for the microphone to come to you there's been an absolute lack of leadership of great leaders coming out of that part of the world removed Saddam Hussein Gaddafi but where are the leaders you have the work with what you've got you can't invent a perfect world you can't you hung her up you a fan of Hamid Karzai he is what emerged from that process of the Afghan Loya Jirga immediately after 9/11 do you think he's a good president that is very laded question and the politic Nenets don't do that I'm not just any Blake on the street exactly you're not you're not a politician is you keep telling us so why don't you give us a non-political answer because I am what I am I am retired head of the British Army so you catch to keep some of your views to yourself it is prudent to do that fair enough lady there in the purple house definitely a military question are you concerned about the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs in the Balkans Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the other weapons that contravene the genocide act like the Therma Barbic weapons that they used on the streets of Fallujah and do you think that our use of weapons that impact so heavily on civilian populations might have given the impression to other countries such as Israel or even Assad in Syria that the use of web like that is acceptable you put me on some quite technical ground depleted-uranium to the best of my knowledge is lawful under the Geneva Convention I don't think Britain would use any weapon which is forbidden by international law or custom bombs have been forbidden in the last few years they've been made illegal you say yes subsequent by my international treaty okay I wasn't actually aware of that but if you're implying that we are really nasty weapons they are really they are very unpleasant weapons but they can also be very effective sorry it's a hard old game sometimes use the use of force but in any event it seems to me this is historical because there but in Iraq for example where we argued about the balance sheet yes plenty of studies have been done showing babies being born around Fallujah with all sorts of birth defects deformities a lot of American scientists published articles on this does that worry you that there may be a link to these weapons we use in and around Fallujah the use question how you like yeah the use of force war is a dreadful thing as anybody who's experienced it knows it would be wonderful thing you would never happen again that such weapons and such a method of settling difference did not occur but we we live in a difficult let's take it let's take inflate ridden world let's take a question from a man at the back gentleman there with his who's got a hand up high with white paper in his hand my question is to general that is West doing any good by going to walls in these countries in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people like in Afghanistan or Iraq well certainly it is deep inside the British Army's DNA when on these sort of operations is that that is what your about your your your objective is not hill one two three to take it by a nice attack from some enemy probably another state's forces it the battleground is people's minds their attitudes you want them to think that the future is gonna be better than what is so often a pretty miserable past gentlemen here in the jumper second row do you want to wait for the mic to come for you to my right what about more reasons and dimensions like the one in Mali where Western forces came in to help and support a democratically elected government do you think that is more virtuous probably promising more success or is that just like any other intervention yeah but thank you for the question more often than not intervention by the West has been by invitation and quite often with the UN Security Council resolution behind it Kosovo was an exception there in to those of you you don't mind up not having UN resolutions of course one minds we had a long discussion about the legality through some very strange language one has a care one one wants the best context you can get but funny old thing I detect the majority of you in this whole is that Iraq was illegal I given you my own reasons for not believing that to be so without died it will be you'll be very pressed to make any sense of a case that Kosovo was legal but it was widely deemed to be legitimate legal and legitimate ideally should be won on the same thing but they are not okay let's go to the gentlemen there in the Czech shirt just to the third row back on the Left it's been estimated that it will cost approximately a total 100 billion pounds to upgrade Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system do you think this is money well spent given the possibility of a global nuclear weapons ban thank you I am absolutely hard over on Britain remaining a nuclear weapons state I dispute the hundred billion panin depends over how long that is as well if it's over the full life which could be 30 30 to 35 years that's 3 billion pounds a year I do not regard the cost argument as really of any weight at all why does the UK government get to have nuclear weapons and say the Iranian government doesn't well because we chosed so equip ourselves why can't they do that because because governments which are irrational who have nuclear weapons or who may become irrational oppose a particular threat and I'm afraid you're not gonna like what I'm going to say I suspect but we have Iranian leaders who clearly think it was a very bad idea that Israel was ever invented and they look forward to the day when Israel will be dis invented take Iran out of the equation can other countries who don't say bad things about Israel can they have nuclear weapons but we we have it we have the non-proliferation treaty whereby we get to have nuclear weapons that was the treaty set up okay I'm gonna take the gentlemen there do you think that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the way that certain people like Baha Moussa were treated by British soldiers has diminished the credibility of the British Army and a British foreign policy to the public and if you accept that what do you think needs to be done for that credibility to be restored we know that Saddam Hussein had had them we know that he had used them not only in the iran-iraq war but against his own people in a pretty bestial way but the intelligence was there that he had continued not only had he had them he continued to have them we know now that intelligence to be flawed and incorrect it was not known at the time when it was clear that there were none to be found after the invasion I accept that not only Britain's reputation here but the coalition's took quite or not Baja Musa is the source of great shame that British soldiers mistreated prisoners and the rule of law must be upheld there is no there's no condoning such behavior although otherwise we cease to be what we are which is the arm the armed forces of a law-abiding democracy General Jackson just before we finish you spent 45 years in the military serving your country you saw people die in various conflicts soldiers under your command enemy soldiers civilians how do those deaths affect you as a person very personal soldiering is the hard business at times and casualties are inevitable but you know that when you take the Queen Chile in the first place it's part of it's the hard part of contract and one of the great things about retiring from the Army seven years ago was saying to myself I will never have to write another letter to the next of kin for that dive a relief at the same time there's there's a danger that soldiers sailors airmen who may become casualties are seen as victims can I beg you all of you in the room and to whomever use this is not what they're about they are not victims only in the sense we are all victims of human nature for which sadly conflict seems an errata cabal dimension you once applauded quote the urge of red-blooded men to want to fight in walls and I wondered earlier you said that is horrific no one wants to go to war yes so where does that age come from given war is always an even it sometimes as the necessary evil yes always an evil yeah we need to be very careful there it can be the lesser of two evils and the red-blooded urge to fight having fought their first battle they've had that dare I say somewhat youthful enthusiasm tempered by the reality of a battlefield which is almost inevitably a dangerous frightening and unpleasant place that doesn't mean to say they changed their minds but they mature they grow up they're not for the urge of it they're doing for the duty and that's what they because that's why they joined well not know we'll have to leave it there we've run out of time thank you General Jackson for joining us this evening thanks for our audience here in the Oxford Union to our panel of experts thanks to you all for watching at home this debate will continue as ever online good night you

Channel: Al Jazeera English

Views: 262,116

Keywords: United States, Deborah Haynes, Frank Ledwidge, sir mike jackson, Al Jazeera English, military intervention, Iraq, London, darth vader, Oxford University, jazeera, intervention, British Army, Sir Jackson, syria, Nadim Shehadi, afghanistan, Head To Head, us, Libya, al Jazeera, Macho Jacko, west, Mehdi Hasan, middle east, british army, us army, iraq conflict, libyan conflict, syrian conflict, afghanistan conflict, iraqi conflict, western colonization

Id: E3G4LA-QwR4

Length: 47min 30sec (2850 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 28 2014