Watch the forum

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has staked his political career on backing the US over Iraq.

However, his tough stance has caused divisions within his own party, sparking rumours of a challenge to his leadership.

And on Tuesday, the Prime Minister's position was further undermined by US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who said the US was prepared to act without British help.

His comments come after reports that British troops were going without vital food and equipment supplies.

The reports were denied by the government.

Will Tony Blair be able to recover? Have Donald Rumsfeld's comments been a help or a hindrance? What should Britain's role be in any potential conflict?

Transcript

Manisha Tank:
Hello, welcome to the Six Forum with me Manisha Tank. Britain has told Saddam Hussein - meet six targets and you could avoid a war. The offer put forward by British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, comes at a time when Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is facing major divisions in his own party over Iraq. Mr Blair's position has been undermined also by comments from the Pentagon that the US could go it alone in the case of a war. Well, bringing insight to the table this time around, Sir Timothy Garden, former assistant Chief of Defence Staff. Thanks very much for joining us.

We're going to start with a series of questions just outlining our position with regard to the UN right now. We start with one from Andrew Finer, London: When the UN talk of "serious consequences" what does it mean? Does it authorise military action?

Sir Timothy Garden:
Normally it authorises everything up to military action. The phrase that diplomats use is, all necessary means, which is the real end one. But the resolution that we've got at the moment, 1441, rolls up a whole series - another 15 resolutions - that happened from the time of the invasion of Kuwait onwards and some of those resolutions do talk about all necessary means - they were the ones that let us go into Kuwait. And we could interpret them as meaning we can still go back in if Saddam hasn't done all the things that he said he would do after the ceasefire.

Manisha Tank:
But as many commentators point out, we're in a very different situation to the one that we were in so many years ago with regard to Kuwait. Ted Dolan, Boston, USA: If the US does decide to go it alone, does the language used in 1441 spare the US from legal repercussions which could ensue?

Sir Timothy Garden:
I am not an international lawyer and they get paid an awful lot of money to give opinions and there are normally as many opinions as there are lawyers.

I think the problem is that when you look at the situation at the moment, it's quite clear that the security council - which after all is the authority to allow war to happen - is not agreed on war. So I think most international lawyers will say whatever the legal technicalities of the 10 year-old, 12 year-old resolutions, we need a new one today that shows the security council is specifically authorising war.

Now if the United States goes without that resolution, the United States can in the end do what it wants because it is the most powerful nation in the world. But the implications for the future of the United Nations may be very severe.

Manisha Tank:
Certainly many would probably want to write in and say - isn't that the whole point of the United Nations, that you don't just have one economically powerful state being able to do whatever it wants. We move on to an e-mail from Stephen Northcott, UK: Surely the US and the UK are more of a threat to world security than Iraq if they go to war without UN backing. By doing this they will effectively destroy any authority that the "World Court of Law" has. Isn't this much more of a threat to security in our world than a dictator with a few missiles?

Sir Timothy Garden:
Well your comparing apples with oranges. We've got a real problem with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and there are different ways of dealing with it - some diplomatic, some through sanctions, some through just bringing the nations into the international community.

It's certainly true that if we lose the United Nations as a way of projecting peace and security around the world. If we see strains in Nato, if we see strains in the European Union and we see discontent in the Middle East as a result of this war, that we may end up with a worse situation than we had when we first started. So there are arguments on both sides and it isn't fair, I think, to say that America and Britain are in themselves bigger threats to peace than Iraq.

Manisha Tank:
George McAllister, Wales: We all know that the US has the capability to go it alone, so why the shock at Donald Rumsfeld's statements just a day ago?

Sir Timothy Garden:
I think the shock was that we have deployed just about the biggest force we've deployed in living memory. We've got 40,000 airmen, soldiers and sailors off to the Gulf in position to fight. They are being integrated into the American force structures and all of a sudden Donald Rumsfeld says - well I don't actually know whether we're going to be going with the Brits. This really was a big shock.

Manisha Tank:
We've had a text message just in from Private Gratton, Royal Logistic Corps: I'm in the army and I think we should go in now - Saddam's had enough chances.

Sir Timothy Garden:
I'm delighted to hear he's ready and able and is not worried by all this talk. It will be decided at a much higher level.

Given that the Government is still of the position that we want to disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully if we can, we're getting towards the 11th hour of all this, we do need to make sure that we've exhausted all the possibilities. And I think the British Government takes a much more close look at the legality of doing this. So the debate we just had a moment ago about whether this is legal or not will affect the British Government's judgment.

Manisha Tank:
Let's talk then about practicalities. Private Gratton is ready to go in but there's been a lot of talk about whether the forces are ready and problems perhaps with food and supplies etc.

Bob Kuleczko, England asks: There have been reports that British troops in the Gulf are under-resourced, particularly in regard to food rations. If we can't afford to support the troops, why are we involved?

Sir Timothy Garden:
There's no doubt that the defence forces have been under-funded for a long time - since the end of the Cold War really. We've been asking them to do more and more tasks and we've been cutting the amount of public money that goes in - successive governments - this is not a political point about any particular party. And to replace capabilities when you have been under-funding takes you years to do - we know how long pieces of equipment take to come in. So I have a fear that we have not put enough investment into our defence forces and we're seeing some of the outcomes of that.

Now General Sir Mike Jackson, who I know well, when he was out seeing the troops the other day said -well there's actually nothing to worry about - they ought to have bought a loo roll with them. There are those sorts of aspects. The troops do want to have the best of kit - they look at what the Americans have got and envy it. But there are some bits of equipment which should have been modified earlier and the National Audit office has just reported on the slowness of learning the lessons from the exercise two years ago.

So there are some things that we should have done better. But every soldier, I am told, is getting 4,000 calories a day - they may not be gourmet calories but that should be enough to keep them going. Perhaps our corporal will let us know what he thinks of the food at the moment.

Manisha Tank:
An e-mail just in from Paul Jones, Plymouth: Is it not true that at last Mr Blair has got it right and is putting the security of our country first? That means that war on Iraq is right, because if left to his own devices Saddam will and has slaughtered the innocent.

Sir Timothy Garden:
It's a very difficult question this because of course the time that Saddam did his slaughtering of the innocent - which he did do - was a time when the British and other governments were supporting Saddam and Iraq because they thought that was a good idea against Iran which was considered to be the big threat.

Since the invasion that Saddam did into Kuwait and being thrown out of it, we've had him under control through all sorts of things - the northern and southern no-fly zones, the economic sanctions - and as a result of that his military capability has decreased over time. So I think it's difficult to argue that he is a real and present danger. But unless we keep him contained or change him, he may become one in a few years.

Manisha Tank:
Dr Mike Diboll, UAE: Thatcher and Major supported previous US actions abroad, but I can't remember either of them making quite such a hash of it. Why has Blair's handling of this situation been so spectacularly inept?

Sir Timothy Garden:
It has been extraordinary because of all prime ministers, he has had the touch - knowing what the people are thinking in the past and using his focus groups and all of that. But I think in terms of external policy - foreign affairs - he has got a history of being pretty courageous politically. We saw him going for Kosovo when others were worried about it. He believes that part of his role, I think, is to right wrongs around the world. The trouble is that with an under-invested defence capability, we can't do it all and I think that's what worries a lot of people.

Now he has misjudged this in a big way and got himself into quite a fix which I think he will only get out of if there is a short successful war where rejoicing is seen in the streets of Baghdad afterwards.

Manisha Tank:
Now you're talking about the forces perhaps being under-resourced. There are people in the country speaking out against war - saying we've problems with our own infrastructure right here in Britain - what are you doing sending troops and investing money abroad like this?

We've had an e-mail from Greg Heywood, UK: What would be the ramifications of Tony Blair backing down over Iraq if the second resolution is not accepted by the UN? How much damage would this do (if any) to UK-US relations?

Sir Timothy Garden:
Well that's very unpredictable. I think given that he's gone out on a limb to such an extent, it would be impossible for him to back off unless he was given very straight legal advice that whatever the UN has agreed or hasn't agreed, makes it impossible for UK troops to be used under international law - that would give him one out. But I think he is determined to go ahead. He wants to see this through. And in the end, of course, if it is a great success, he will be seen by history as a great leader who overcame domestic difficulties as well as the international difficulties and made the world a safer place. But that's a lot of "ifs".

Manisha Tank:
We have an e-mail just in from Rob, London, England: If the UK is singled out as the destination for a retaliatory terrorist strike, I feel we will be woefully unprepared. Has the Government done enough to protect us here at home?

Also we've just heard that there's going to be fire-fighters strike on March 20th - again another situation that doesn't help matters.

Sir Timothy Garden:
I'd strongly agree with that point of view. It seems to me that when you look at the lack of action in terms of the local government response to terrorist attacks, we are now over year after the 9/11 attack but we still haven't got the legislation starting to take place to put an onus on local government. The fire fighters are going on strike, how extraordinary when they are the first line of defence for this. I think we may find ourselves caught short if we do have a terrorist attack and we'll all say why wasn't more done.

Manisha Tank:
It sounds most certainly there's a number of issues at home that perhaps the Prime Minister needs to address. But in the meantime we need to wrap it up there. Sir Timothy Garden, thank you so much for joining us on the Six Forum.

That's it for now. Thanks very much to you all for joining us here on the Six Forum. I'm Manisha Tank, do join us again next time but for now goodbye.