Sunday 8th May, 2011

Q+A interview with Dr David Kilcullen, Peter Arnett & today’s Panel Discussions are all transcribed below


PANEL EXCLUSIVE: More analysis from Jon Johansson, John Pagani and Michael Barnett will be posted exclusively online tomorrow – you can find the web-only panel on Q+A’s homepage on Monday, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

The interview has been transcribed below. The full length video interviews and panel discussions from this morning’s Q+A can be watched again on tvnz.co.nz at, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7

Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA

Dr DAVID KILCULLEN – Military Adviser

We’re not clear precisely on the orders given to the assault team, whether they were told to take him dead or alive, or whether this was a mission primarily designed to kill him. I think that this is simply a case of the assault team probably would have been willing to take him alive had he not chosen to fight back. In NZ, I think we can say you’re relatively safe, and probably the same in Australia. I think what we’re likely to see is a series of copycat or revenge attacks at the local level by independent cells. But in terms of large-scale attacks on the scale of 9/11 or the London bombings or the Bali bombings, I think it’s highly unlikely that we’re going to see them, and even if we do, it’ll be an uptick on a downward slope. The fortunes of Al Qaeda have been very severely dented by the uprisings and peaceful protests that have changed the political face of the Middle East and North Africa, and done things peacefully through civil society, which these murderous terrorists have been saying for a decade that only they could pull off, whereas they’ve achieved very much nothing other than killing a lot of Muslims. Right now, worldwide in the Muslim world, about 18% of people believe that you can trust Al Qaeda to do the right thing. That’s the lowest approval rating they’ve ever had. Um, and I think that this just further reinforces the decline of the violent terrorist approach to solving problems.
Chief ideologue of Al Qaeda is a man named Ayman al-Zawahiri, he’s Egyptian, and is a medical doctor by profession. He is the putative number two to Osama bin Laden, but of course he’s a very divisive figure within Al Qaeda, and it’s quite likely that what we’re going to see in the senior leadership ranks of Al Qaeda in the next few months is an internal struggle for succession. I think we should, of course, recognise that there’s still a huge amount to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan and other parts of the world, and one of the key reasons why we got into this situation in the first place is because after the Soviets left Afghanistan the international community turned away from the problem and didn’t engage in peace-building and reconciliation and the political coming-together that needs to happen to put an end to these kinds of conflicts. The United States and the Coalition made exactly the same mistake after 9/11 when we turned away from Afghanistan to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. And the Taliban were able to come back. We don’t want to make the same mistake a third time.
That said, this event, I think, will give some impetus to the notion that in July this year we, uh, will see a significant withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

PETER ARNETT interviewed by PAUL HOLMES

PETER ARNETT – Journalist
I think he chose CNN because we had made a splash with the first Gulf War, and he certainly recognised me. So we got the interview, and it took three months of planning, and it took a long wait and six anxious days in Jalalabad, and finally, driven up late at night up the mountainside, Tora Bora, into a small house, sitting on the ground, when he walked in, and he was an imposing presence. He’s well over 6ft, he wore a military jacket, and in his right hand an AK-47. And he sort of nodded to us, sat down, sipped tea, and the interview began. Imposing man. And this was a man who had surprised certainly American intelligence by declaring a war on the United States. I don’t think at that point he was taken too seriously. But clearly, he used our interview hoping he would emerge on the world stage, with an international television organisation, and like so many others I’d interviewed – Saddam Hussein, Ratko Mladic – these people wanted to make a good impression. So he did smile, but occasionally he grew very bitter and angry as the interview progressed.

PAUL Could you feel hatred in him?

PETER I could feel hatred when he talked about targeting American soldiers, those who were living in Saudi Arabia. There were 15,000 to 20,000 in Saudi Arabia, left there after the first Gulf War. And he spent quite some time claiming that these soldiers had polluted the Islamic environment, during the Gulf War had killed women and children, and that they deserved to meet a fate that the Islamic Koran had planned for them. When I asked him, ‘What about American civilians? They’re not military,’ he said, ‘Any people who support such a military, they also deserve to be targets.’ And he mentioned that a few times, signalling that civilians were in his target sights, as were the military.

PAUL Yes, it’s interesting to consider what his place in history’s going to be when you consider that he emerged because he was so offended by the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and because he was so offended by the Palestinian-Israeli business. Well, of course, he’s now dead and those two situations still obtain. He’s therefore, I suppose, a failure.

PETER Well, there was more than just those two situations. He also talked about his joy at being involved in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and he said, in these words, ‘We defeated the Soviet Union, this great power. We will bring down the other great power, and we will create a union of Islamic peoples from Morocco to Indonesia,’ with him, of course, being the leader of this large collection of countries and people.

PAUL What about the way he died? We’ve just had a NZ politician on the programme, Peter, saying the way we killed him, the way we did, doesn’t that make us as bad as him? What’s your reaction to that? What do you say to that?

PETER (Chuckles) I-I-I think that’s a silly thing to say. This was a mission launched against a man who’d been on the run for a dozen years after planning and implementing some of the worst terrorist acts in history. These soldiers who went in after him, now, I’m not privy to their planning, but there is no doubt that their instructions were, ‘When you see bin Laden, if he even flicks his eyes, shoot him, because he’s too likely to have a trick or two up his sleeve.’ I think the only way he could’ve survived when the soldiers burst into his bedroom, if he’d fallen to his knees and raised his hands in surrender they probably wouldn’t have shot him, they would have captured him. Now, remember Saddam Hussein hid in a tunnel for several months. When the American soldiers opened that tunnel, he came out pleading for his life. And they— And if anyone was a target for a bullet, it was Saddam Hussein. But in that case, the soldiers arrested him and he stood trial.

PAUL Of course, Osama bin Laden was not living in a tunnel or a cave. He was living in some pleasant circumstances, right smack, obviously, in the middle of a garrison town. Do you believe it is possible for the Pakistani security and military not to have known he was there, Peter?

PETER This is what I make of it – I think at some point several years ago, this house was designated by someone within intelligence or military as being a house to be avoided, a house to be protected, in a sense, a house to be left alone. Don’t forget this, Paul – bin Laden was a man who had been familiar with Pakistan since the mid 1980s. He travelled freely back and forth into Afghanistan. He was very close to the Taliban. The Taliban is very close to Pakistani military and intelligence. He had lots of friends—

PAUL Go back to that interview. When the years went by after that interview, in, what, ’05 when the USS Cole was blown up, and of course the Twin Towers were blown up in that extraordinary act of terror, did you figure at the time of meeting him that he had that kind of organisational ability in him, living up in the hills?

PETER He had a reputation for being a master of communications. He had the latest electronic gadgetry. And that was revealed in the raid in the house where they finally found him – I think 100 different communications gadgets of one kind or another. He was believed to be very very wealthy. Actually, he was believed to be far more wealthy than he actually was. But he was seen as a very efficient, sharp operator who was using— gathering around him educated young men, they were university-educated Arabs. Those who attacked the World Trade Centre, of course, were well-educated, well-brought-up young Arab men. He could attract people of influence. And I notice his five wives, many of them had university degrees. So he was a man of great character and great organisation. And I think he proved it by outwitting US intelligence and military operations for as long as he did. Don’t forget this is a man who basically married a 17-year-old wife, his fifth wife, after 9/11 and had three children with her, despite all the searching for him.

PAUL Mm, extraordinary. Where was he at at the end, or had time passed him by? Because what we’ve seen, of course, is the Arab Spring right across North Africa, Egypt, Syria, and it’s not an Al Qaeda— it’s not part of the Al Qaeda narrative. These people are simply demonstrating, not against America but against their own leaders, wanting new freedoms and so forth. Had time passed him by?

PETER I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I mean, he was in hiding, the circumstances of his life forced him to use couriers, you know, instead of modern communications, but the Al Qaeda membership, they all, everyone joining Al Qaeda anywhere in the world – and I think there are five or six Al Qaeda branches in different countries – they all swore fealty to Osama bin Laden; not to Al Qaeda, to him. So he was the leader, the master, the spiritual leader and the action leader. And his mere existence, his survival was an important factor. Now, I think it is clear, if you’re reading all the analyses, that in countries like Somalia, Yemen, still in Iraq and other locales, there are Al Qaeda cells, there are concerns that they may start revenge killing, and I think it’ll take time for them to— Maybe recruitment may lower, but I think they will be an effective force for the next few years.

PAUL And, of course, the other aspect to all of this is what are the effects going to be on the war in Afghanistan, given that the war was all about Osama being in Afghanistan anyway? Could it shorten the Afghanistan war, do you think?

PETER Well, I think there are two factors to consider: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now, it is clear that the Taliban are using Pakistan the same way the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese used Cambodia and Laos many years ago – it’s a place to go for R & R, it’s a place to go to reinforce, it’s a place to train recruits, we know that. So the war in Afghanistan will continue with a strong Taliban as long as they’re permitted to work out of Pakistan. And if the US does indeed start pulling out prematurely, it’s clear that the Taliban could well go on to score a victory. Can the United States persuade Pakistan to stop supporting the Taliban and work with the United States, push the Taliban back into Afghanistan and some way reach some kind of political solution? It is a mess, Paul. There are no simple answers, and I think while many Americans would like to say the Afghan war’s over, I don’t think it’ll be that easy to disengage

PAUL A mess, indeed, but it’s been wonderful to have your clarity, and it’s been wonderful to speak with you again and see you looking so well, Mr Arnett. All the best.

PETER Thank you, Paul. A pleasure to be with you.

PANEL DISCUSSION led by PAUL HOLMES

In response to PETER ARNETT interview

PAUL You came up with a most interesting point about Osama bin Laden running everything from that house in the middle of Pakistan – no tyranny of miles there.

MICHAEL Absolutely not. It demonstrates, as we know in business, you can do it from anywhere in the world. The fact is this guy, he was the shock jock of terrorism. What we should be afraid of is the fight by the franchisees.

PAUL You make a point about the amount of intelligence stuff the Yanks have found in his house.

JON 100 flash drives, 10 hard drives. That’s gonna give them a very very good picture of the current state of Al Qaeda.

PAUL They’ll break Al Qaeda with that stuff, won’t they?

JON It also shows, actually, the hubris bin Laden was enveloped by, because he got too comfortable, didn’t he?

PAUL Well, why was he so comfortable? Was that because he was there with the compliance of the Pakistanis?

JON I think Arnett nailed it on the deal that went down there. But can I just also add, Paul, that I think the real opportunity here for Barack Obama is that this sort of action gives pause to all the other political actors, both domestically for Obama, but also internationally. And during that pause period he has the opportunity of shifting that dynamic in Afghanistan. Now, I accept what Arnett says, we could be there for another 10, 20 years, but an opportunity is now there to get the hell out.

MICHAEL He’ll have to be quick.

JON He’ll have to be quick.

PAUL We spoke to a former CIA Islamabad chief, Bob Grenier, and he said the Arab Spring that we’re seeing at the moment changes everything. Al Qaeda’s message was about victimhood, and the Arab Spring’s about empowerment. Fascinating, isn’t it?

JOHN And that’s the thing, that Al Qaeda was telling those disaffected young men in the United States that the way out of repression was through terrorism and Al Qaeda, and in fact they’re finding a much better way out.

JON But let’s not get too carried away about the Spring just yet either.

PAUL No, we’ll see what happens. We’ll see if it becomes a summer.

In response to RUSSEL NORMAN interview

PAUL Time to welcome our panel. Dr Jon Johansson from Victoria University, and this week we welcome political strategist and former adviser to Labour leader Phil Goff, John Pagani, and of course with us also the Auckland Chamber of Commerce boss, chief executive, Michael Barnett. Thank you all very much for coming along to Q+A. So, the Greens first of all, Russel Norman. Let’s deal with this first of all, then we’ll get to Rodney Hide and matters to do with ACT. The Greens are trying to shake off I suppose we could say the tree-huggers, kind of, tag. But when we hear Russel Norman talking about the way in which Osama bin Laden was taken out does that decrease his credibility?

JOHN PAGANI – Political Strategist
It sounds naïve, but I think it’s a reasoned position. Um, what he seems to overlook is that there is no question that bin Laden was clearly a valid military target. He speaks as if he was some corner criminal who the local law enforcement was sent to arrest. Look, he inflicted an act of war against not just the United States but against humanity, and for that reason he was a justified military target. But having said that, it is a reasonable thing to say, you know, the Nazi monsters after the Second World War were tried at Nuremberg, and democracy and justice were strengthened by that, as they always are by judicial process.

PAUL Yes, and when they were convicted they were hanged. But when they were hanged they were then taken to the ovens at Dachau.

JON JOHANSSON – Political Analyst
Yeah, but also, back in—

PAUL Certain things are primitive.

JON In Nuremberg, Paul, they didn’t have 24-7 saturation media. I mean, can you just imagine the circus of a live—? It was just not an option. The complications from a live Osama bin Laden would have been catastrophic, uh, I think, in terms of Obama’s position.

PAUL Well, it would have made the United States a hell of a target again, I suppose. Dan and Roger in feedback both say, ‘If bin Laden had been taken alive, there would have been a raft of hostage-takings with more people put at risk,’ for example.

MICHAEL BARNETT – Auckland Chamber of Commerce
And if I have a look at Nuremberg at the end of that, we were at the end of a war. Today we’re talking terrorism; bin Laden was the face of terrorism. It’s something that is totally different. If he had been left, the acts of terrorism would have continued. He was a brand for a way of thinking.

PAUL What about Milosevic though? Milosevic took more people out than Osama bin Laden, and he got a trial.

JON Yeah, I know. But it’s a unique problem, isn’t it, uh, because terrorism is global, and it is now part of our permanent condition.

PAUL I mean, in the end you’ve gotta remember what he did. You’ve gotta remember those pictures of 9/11. You’ve gotta remember those buildings collapsing, those balls of fire. They were always going to kill him.

JOHN Could you imagine what we’d be talking about today if he was sitting in a jail somewhere in New York, for example? The United States would be ripping itself apart in a debate over—

JON But that’s part of the problem, John. He wouldn’t have been in a court in New York. He would’ve had to have been sent down to Guantanamo Bay, and—

JOHN So they’d be tearing themselves apart over that.

PAUL Now let’s move on to something else that came up with Guyon’s interview with Russel Norman. He presents very well, I have to say, Russel Norman. And you’re right, the arguments are very reasoned. But he talks about defence; he says you can train with the Americans, the British and the Australians, but it appears we can’t fight with them in the way they fight. And he brings up this controversial issue at the moment of our handing over Afghani civilians to the Americans and possibly they’ve been tortured. Jerry Mateparae was Chief of Defence Staff when that was happening. He wants an inquiry into Jerry Mateparae, the Governor General designate. What do you think?

JON Uh, Russel is not just reflecting those on the left and their concerns about this issue of, uh, essentially our SAS being put in a compromising position, which is really the argument here. There’s a much wider groundswell that believe that inquiry is needed here, not just those people on the left. You know, and I’m a flat-out realist when it comes to world issues, and I believe that Mateparae needs this stain removed, and that stain will remain. And the government, honestly, just ostrich in the sand here, just stonewalling.

PAUL So we’ve got to see if he’s completely clean, I suppose, is what you’re saying.

JON There are enough doubts here.

MICHAEL I’m not in the same space. Mateparae had a role to play and he fulfilled that role to try and—

JON But we don’t know what that role just quite is, Michael. That’s the problem.

MICHAEL But we keep on going into conspiracy theories, and we’ll now do an inquiry. To my mind, for him to have got to the status of Governor General they should have done that, confirm it or deny. I don’t care.

PAUL But in the end, if you read your history, war’s filthy. War is dirty.

JON Yeah, I know, and the NZ public have a genuine right to know what the direction of our civilian leadership is taking us in that war, Paul. That is what many of us are simply asking, because this prime minister has said he intended on being open to us about what is going on. That is not happening.

JOHN This story has come, it’s been given to the journalist who wrote it by people who were knowledgeable about what was happening inside there. Those are not the sort of people who would normally talk to reporters, therefore you know that some of the people involved in this are disgusted about it, worried about it. And so there is some stuff there that needs to be examined, there are some legitimate questions. But, you know, in the end, NZ troops are entitled to rely on the fact that our partners in that place have signed the same international conventions that we have, and when we hand things over we’re entitled to rely on that. If we know that there’s a problem, though, we shouldn’t be part of it. International law is the only thing NZ has, and we should be pillars of responsibility in the application of it.

PAUL So inquiry – yes or no?

JOHN There has to be an inquiry.

PAUL Jon, inquiry?

JON It’s inevitable.

MICHAEL No.

PAUL Very good. Now let’s go to the politics of the Green Party. Russel Normal talked about reaching out further to get the green vote:

Russel Norman: There is a distinction between what a Mana Party vote might look like and what a Green Party vote looks like. The challenge for the Greens, I think, is to actually move out, move more into the suburbs and to appeal more to suburban NZers, if you like.

PAUL Someone texted us, someone said, ‘The opinion of Russel Norman is not credible.’ I don’t know which particular opinion he found not to be credible. ‘Reaching to the suburbs’, what does that mean?

JOHN He’s right, they do need to. Guyon picked up on an important point there – there is no realistic pathway to government for the Labour Party that doesn’t involve the Greens, so the Greens don’t need to extend their relationship more in that direction. They do need to make it look as though they’re more of a centrist party, and I have to say banging on about cannabis for teenagers and conspiracy theories about Afghanistan are probably not the mainstream way to do that.

JON Come on, John. I mean, Russel was not banging on about cannabis. You’ll never hear Russel Norman talk about cannabis. Russel Norman actually spends most of his time talking about the environment and the economy.

JOHN That’s true, but he has to answer the questions about a policy that isn’t gonna be swallowed very well.

JON The Greens are the one stable minor party in our electoral system. Look at the wreckage around them that we’ve been canvassing these last few weeks.

PAUL That is true, but here is, I think, one of the fundamental things about the Greens. Now, Hone Harawira came on this programme last week and he said, ‘Look, the Greens have done very well on the cross-benches. Don’t push me into coalition with anybody.’ And of course, he thinks the Maori Party completely messed up their remit by teaming up with the Nats. Pita Sharples, on the other hand, says, ‘Hone can say what he bloody well wants – he’s free and he’s nowhere. He’s nowhere. But we are in government. And we might have to swallow a few dead rats, but we’re part of government.’

MICHAEL And to me, Russel looked like he was swallowing a rat when he was talking about cannabis. He was uncomfortable. I’m gonna go to the point. You know, when you have a look at whether it’s Hone, whether it’s Russel, it doesn’t matter who it is, the diversity that we’re getting into Parliament right now, to me, is good. You know, it’s a different line of thought. And I don’t care whether it’s far right or far left. We’ve categorised for too long – left and right. Diversity of thought, we don’t do it in the boardrooms of this country well, we do it quite well in employment, but we don’t do it in Parliament. If I get some thought that ends up there’s some compromise on middle ground, that’s new thinking, that’s us moving forward. I think it’s great.

JOHN I think they’re doing a good job of trying to reposition themselves, as you say, on some of these issues. The hard part for them is that there are some policies that a lot of their activists are committed to – and the cannabis one is a good example – that they really need to jettison to give themselves the opportunity for growth.

PAUL Yeah, cos it’s there in black and white: 18 years old, you can smoke it legally.

MICHAEL But even blue has now got a tinge of green, and so has red. If they don’t capture some new ground they’ll stay a 5% party, and that’s it.

JON And the problem of every minor party that’s gone, there’s always a lot of fuss about the, uh, tail wags the dog; well, actually, the experience of MMP is the tail keeps on falling off the dog.

PAUL Yes, yes, yes. Any minor party that takes a ministerial post gets less of the vote next time round.

JON And just a last word on the Greens there. They have actually managed a leadership transition better than they’ve ever been given credit for, and certainly compared to other parties.

PAUL He certainly speaks a very modern greenness in the way the German greens do.

MICHAEL Yes, but the German greens, if you have a look at them 15 years ago, you’d get to about item 14 on their manifesto before you hit on a green issue: they broadened their base to make themselves a wider appeal. If these guys don’t do that, they’ll be the third biggest party in Parliament

PAUL They went to the suburbs, exactly.

JOHN We are seeing some maturity there that we haven’t seen. If you looked at the WikiLeaks document this week that came out of the United States— uh, that came out of the reports the United States sent back about their meeting with Russel Norman, his trip to, uh, the United States, they’re saying, ‘Actually, off the record, these guys are being reasonable.’ Now, a couple of years ago the Greens wouldn’t have done that, but they are being moderate, at least in private.

In response to RODNEY HIDE interview

PAUL Just quickly on Rodney Hide. Duncan Pitman says, ‘Without giving any credence to nasty rumours about a love child, could Don Brash be a problem? Brash will be toxic for National— was toxic— could be toxic for National, could lose National the election.’

JOHN Well, this is someone who campaigned on family values. That’s why the Exclusive Brethren backed him. And they’re— Whenever you hear that, who could have predicted that these sorts of rumours are gonna start? But I dunno, I don’t think anyone’s got—

PAUL It’s crap politics, isn’t it? It’s crap politics, that is.

MICHAEL It is. When I have a look at ACT, what they’ve done in the past, they’ve done too much about what they’re going to do, not why they’re going to do it. They don’t talk of consequences. They haven’t had young people giving a young, fresh, new message, and they’ve got some pretty uninspiring people.

PAUL But as Derek Fox said, you know, stop the mad spending, stop the mad borrowing of 300 million dollars every week and you’ll get riots in the streets.

MICHAEL Yeah, but tell us why, the consequences of taking some of those—

JON They have absolutely lost the plot on the why.

PAUL Quick word on Rodney Hide. Will he be there after the next election?

MICHAEL He should be, should reinvent himself, he’s a nice guy.

JOHN No, but how do we end up in the position where he can’t stand on the list, be he should be left in the ministry?

© Scoop Media