Speaker 1:

Thanks for joining us, sir. I believe you've sent compliments to the president, is that a first?

Speaker 2:

Well, I think this is a big victory for America. I think this is something that the American people have wanted overwhelmingly. And I think that's reflected in the support for the president's action. I think in a way though it's a bigger victory for the United States than it is a defeat for Al-Qaeda because I think Bin Laden has been out of operational control for some time. We'll find out the answer to that of course from the data that the seals gained in the compound. I think it's a big moral defeat for Al-Qaeda and the terrorist but I don't think it will necessarily have a big affect on day-to-day operations.

Speaker 1:

Most of the key agendas that you pushed when you were in the administration, Iraq's been invaded, Afghanistan's been invaded, Bin Laden's dead, have you achieved or did you achieve what you believed you were setting out to do?

Speaker 2:

We achieved part of it. I think the removal from Saddam Hussein has definitely made the world a much safer place. I think the overthrow of the Taliban made the world a much a safer place but the problem has grown and evolved since then. We still have terrorist threats around the world, we still have the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Speaker 1:

But what more can you do? I mean how much more muscular, if you like, can America be? If invaded two countries, tens of thousands of people are dead, what else can be done to address this problem within reasonable-

Speaker 2:

Those are some of the costs, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, really are now free or have the potential for freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq-

Speaker 1:

Doesn't look like it.

Speaker 2:

But the battle goes on that's true but it's a mistake to say that as a consequence of our response to 9/11 that major progress hasn't been made. But I acknowledge more needs to be done. I wish we had taken out Qaddafi at the beginning of the conflict there.

Speaker 1:

Across the political spectrum, what impact has the death of Bin Laden had on America's enthusiasm to continue in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a sense of retreat now? Would that be justified?

Speaker 2:

I don't think we know the real answer to that. I think part of it depends on the president's leadership. Poll numbers in the past year has shown a decline in support for the war in Afghanistan. I think that's largely because the president's not explaining and defending it. I think we still have the same strategic interest in making sure that Taliban or Al-Qaeda don't make Afghanistan a base for international terrorism again and I think we have what is probably an even more important objective preventing the Pakistan nuclear weapon's arsenal from falling in the hands of terrorist. That's why this struggle needs to continue but the president has not been defending it but for one or two speeches here or there.

Speaker 1:

Well you know well the Republican side of politics, you know some of the people that are being moved to this potential presidential candidates, what's the mood amongst them I mean do they have a [inaudible 00:03:15] for continuing these wars or are they tired of it themselves?

Speaker 2:

Well, I think some people would like to see a more restrained policy internationally but I think the overwhelming view in the Republican party is that it's much better to fight the terrorist near their bases than to fight them in the United States. I think there's a deep appreciation for the risks that still exist in the world particularly when you combine the threat of terrorism with the risk of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, or biological getting into the terrorist's hands.

Speaker 1:

Very few are shedding any tears for Bin Laden but it does seem extraordinary to launch a military hit on another nation's soil. You've been an ambassador to the UN under international law, is this legal?

Speaker 2:

Of course, it is. We're exercising our Article 51 of the UN Charter, inherent right to individual and collective self-defense. Osama bin Laden committed an act of war against the United States and he has now paid for it.

Speaker 1:

Would America tolerate such an action if America was harbouring a dictator or someone that was highly offensive or regarded as a terrorist by another nation?

Speaker 2:

There's no guarantee that we could stop somebody from trying to do the same thing on our soil if we had a foreign leader in hospital in the United States for example but anybody who contemplated it would have to risk the potential consequences of that.

Speaker 1:

Were the American forces lucky that the consequences of that intrusion wasn't a [inaudible 00:04:51] by the Pakistan air force?

Speaker 2:

There's always a risk. I'm sure that was part of the decision calculus that there was a clear basis not to tell the Pakistan government for fear that the operation would be compromised. There is gonna be political fall out from the operation, there's no doubt about it but on the scale of priorities, getting the guy who was number one on the FBI's most wanted list, well worth doing.

Speaker 1:

Yeah as I said, I'm sure there's no tears being shed for Bin Laden, certainly not in this country, but should we see this as a precedent for attacks on other individuals perhaps in Iran, or Lebanon or Palestine?

Speaker 2:

I think anybody who attacks the United States ought to be worried that we can find them and we can deal with them.

Speaker 1:

There's been lots of speculation in recent weeks that you're going to throw your hat into the ring for the presidential race. Have you made a decision on that?

Speaker 2:

I'm considering it very seriously. I think it's important that national security issues get a fuller debate in our political environment than they have for the past two years. I don't think the president pays enough attention to foreign policy, I think that's dangerous for the country because our advisories are not waiting around for us to get our economic house in order. And I think one important way you can raise the salience of these kinds of issues is to run for president.

Speaker 1:

And if you succeeded, what sort of, as for an international audience, how far are you prepared to go and what more can be done as we've seen multiple wars, we've seen tens and tens of thousands of people killed, where does a [inaudible 00:06:26] on this president go that we haven't gone so far?

Speaker 2:

Well, we've seen threats eliminated to peace and security, regionally and globally as well, I think the biggest threat that we face remains the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and we are in a very dangerous territory. Now as Iran continues to make progress towards getting nuclear weapons, North Korea continues its nuclear weapons programme, we have the risk if Iran gets nuclear weapons, others in the region, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey perhaps others will as well. We've got Hugo Chavez loose on the South American continent with the world's second largest reserves with uranium in the ground.

Speaker 1:

This sounds like an internal war, will this ever stop?

Speaker 2:

There will never be complete peace and security in the world. It's the nature of mankind that threats will evolve and change and the principal purpose of American national security policy has to be to protect America and it's friends and allies from those threats as they emerge.

Speaker 1:

Thanks for your time, sir.

Speaker 2:

Thank you.