ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now then, during the Libya conflict the Foreign Secretary said he planned to give parliament the power to vote on future military actions but more than a year later no such law is on the statute book and no vote has taken place about Britain’s involvement in Mali. So is it practical for MPs to be consulted before we engage in military action? In a moment I’ll speak to former Lib Dem leader, former Special Forces Office of course, he is Paddy Ashdown but joining me now from Norwich is the former Head of the Army, Lord Dannatt, a very good morning to you Lord Dannatt. The military it is always said are after all the servants of the people, shouldn’t the people’s representatives in the form of MPs then be consulted if there is any serious military action sanctioned?

LORD DANNATT: Well the people’s representative at the most senior level is the Prime Minister and he heads the largest party that therefore forms the government in the House of Commons and I think if we have someone in that position, we have to trust his judgement to take decisions that are often required to be taken very quickly in the best interests of the nation and that might require committal of the armed forces to operations. So my own view is that if the Prime Minister cannot act without the authority of parliament then there is a real risk that military action could be delayed and its effectiveness much reduced.

DM: So is it all about speed of response or is it also about the size of the action proposed, i.e. you get a vote on Iraq given the size of the engagement that was being considered there and took place and Mali is relatively limited at the moment?

LORD DANNATT: Yes, every war is different. Certainly you point to the two most obvious examples. Iraq was a very considered operation which we had quite some time to decide whether we were going to support the Americans and whether we were going to join them. In those circumstances it might have been possible for the Prime Minister of the day to have gone to the House of Commons and asked for the Commons to support him, but I think that principle, if that became enshrined in law and that future Prime Ministers were prevented from taking a decision in short order, it may be an operation to evacuate British nationals in a threatened situation, that would be potentially damaging for the operation and damaging for Britain’s interests and our citizens around the world.

DM: I think everyone can understand that but what about this phrase mission creep? Looking at Mali and a little bit more widely, initially we heard that it was a couple of support aircraft and the crews necessary to maintain that to help the French. Now we hear about special advisors, about trainers going in there and some kind of deployment more widely around Africa. Things seem to be changing, at what point should there at least be a debate within parliament about how far we go and join in?

LORD DANNATT: Well my original points were all to do with the initial decision to commit armed forces. In the circumstances of Mali, and this has now been going on for some weeks, of course it is absolutely right for the Prime Minister, for the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, goes to the House of Commons and puts all the information in front of the members of the House of Commons so they can debate it and therefore the Prime Minister and the government will know whether the House of Commons is supporting because at the end of the day what our military do around the world is in the name of you, it’s in the name of me, it’s in the name of the people and the armed forces have got to believe that they are acting in the best interests of the people and that is best expressed in slow time when the opportunity arises through a debate in the House of Commons.

DM: Presumably you have questions in your own head about what the objective is in Mali and beyond in North Africa?

LORD DANNATT: Well yes, if you want to talk about Mali in particular I think the initial situation in Mali, the French felt they had to act as a former colonial power with the backing of the United Nations Security Council and that made that a legitimate thing to do but the wider issue is where the concerns are and if we’ve learnt any lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and other interventions, is that facing down the Islamist challenge we need to be very careful about how long we spend time on Islamic soil. Our boots on the ground can become more part of the problem than a solution but helping the Malians, helping the West Africans to build up their own capability, their own military capability to look after their own security, that is quite a legitimate and sensible and reasonable thing to do. There is a wider policy behind that which means that trying to get ahead of problems, seeing where states may fail in the future, building up indigenous capability so people can stand on their own feet, an integration if you like of defence, diplomacy and development, all that makes sense.

DM: Okay, Lord Dannatt, thank you very much indeed for sparing the time to talk to us today on Sky News. Let’s go over to Somerset now and talk to the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown. A very good morning to you Paddy Ashdown, the point I was discussing with Lord Dannatt first of all, when do you think MPs should be consulted when it comes to military action?

PADDY ASHDOWN: Good morning Dermot. I think MPs should be consulted when it comes to military action and underline the word consult. Mr Blair went to parliament when we went to war, that rather misguided war in Iraq. Mr Cameron came to parliament before Libya, it’s a perfectly reasonable procedure to follow. This is the most important decision the government makes, putting young men into harm, and women, into harm’s way so it’s quite right that parliament should debate it. Now there is absolutely nothing to stop a piece of legislation being bought forward to enable that which nevertheless gives the government the right, in emergencies, to act without consulting parliament and consulting afterwards or indeed to reject the advice of parliament and go ahead if there is an immediate emergency and then to explain the situation to parliament afterwards. This is a perfectly normal kind of legislation which exists in France, which exists in the United States and if the coalition were to bring forward some legislation to enable that to happen in Britain with those sensible caveats, then I don’t see why not. I mean the generals won’t like it very much but they don’t run the country, thank God, it’s parliament that runs the country and we should have the right to discuss, to be consulted when there are major operations that put young men and women into harm’s way.

DM: Well let me put to you one of the points of one of those former generals, Lord Dannatt, about Mali and beyond and Lord Dannatt saying there that you’ve got to be careful when you deploy, and of course a very limited deployment at the moment, you’ve got to be careful when you deploy, when you put any kind of boots on the ground there, that you don’t become part of the problem rather than the solution.

PA: Yes, I think that’s right. The truth is I think there is much more going on in the Magreb from Syria right the way through into the Russian Islamic republics, right the way down to Mali, there is a serious and determined attempt for the Salafist extremists to take over the Sunni Ummah as a preparatory phase towards an inter-Islamic war with the Shia, that’s the big event and a very, very dangerous event. So we need to be aware that in Mali we are part of something much, much larger, first point. Second point, we reacted far too late. We saw this coming, oh I don't know, months ago. I was writing about it back in December and November, it was perfectly evident that it was going to happen. If we can act ahead of events, in the actually that Lord Dannatt suggested, to build up the capacity of local troops, then we can avoid putting ours in and insofar as we are fighting a war, which may well go on for a generation, don’t use Iraq and Afghanistan as a model where we have vast numbers of boots on the ground. Think about much more action ahead of events, diplomacy as Lord Dannatt said, aid and military action to help Islamic governments protect themselves. In Somalia, by the way, which has been a great success we’ve done just that, we should have done it in Mali as well.

DM: But what about consistency of approach? Let me paraphrase the George Galloway question I suppose it was that he put to the Prime Minister and was rather slapped down for it, but some people are puzzled. If you compare and contrast what’s happening in Syria, George Galloway – I’m sure you heard him say, he was more or less saying when is Al Qaeda good Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda and its affiliates and when it is it bad Al Qaeda? It seems to be elements of Al Qaeda and Islamist militants in Syria are getting some kind of support and some kind of help from those that want to topple the Assad regime but of course in Mali they were bad Al Qaeda and they had to be rid of them.

PA: Look, George is a wonderful guy no doubt but he is a wonderful theoretician. You act where you can, you don’t where you can’t. We can act in Mali, we should act, we’re acting to prevent the Malian government, under UN Security Council resolution, therefore legal, to protect its own territory. There is no such UN Security Council resolution in respect of Syria for reasons we all understand. Furthermore, given the complexity of the Syrian case, where the rebels on the ground are not just innocent citizens being subjected to terror from a tyrannical government, they are part of that Salafist take-over which is so worrying. So in Mali we can do it and we should and we have and I hope it’s a success though I think there is a lot more difficulty yet to come. In Syria, absent of a UN Security Council Resolution and absent the forces to do it, we can’t. That’s a sad fact but it’s a hard fact of life.

DM: Can I just ask you finally, Paddy Ashdown, as a distinguished member of the Special Services yourself, we’re hearing today and it has a huge bearing on what we’ve just been discussing, increased use of Special Forces and surgical involvements rather than mass military boots on the ground in places like Mali and beyond, we’re hearing that back up staff, support staff for some of the Special Forces will be but. Do you think that’s a wise move?

PADDY ASHDOWN: I think you are actually deliberately using a word … Well you are using a word, Dermot, whether deliberately or not which is not the word that they used. My Royal Marine friends tell me this is a redeployment, it’s not a cut and it’s very important that we put it across in those terms. But let me have a look at this, what’s very clear and you’re absolutely right about this, that heavyweight military action with battle units on the ground like we’ve seen in Mali, will probably become a relative rarity. Clever, smart use of diplomacy, of Special Forces, of aid, of assistance and always acting ahead of events will become much more the norm and therefore our Special Forces have a very special role to play in what is this new strategy. My guess is this is a redeployment, it will not cut back on Special Force numbers though it may have an impact on capacity, when we look at it we’ll be able to make a judgement on that but at the moment this is being described to me as a redeployment, not a cut.

DM: Okay, Paddy, great to talk to you as ever, Paddy Ashdown there.