HUMPHRYS:                    Thanks Peter.      
             

                         Iain Duncan Smith caught 
it in the neck this week from the government because of what he said about 
the war.  Mr Duncan-Smith, the Leader of the Opposition was called "a completely 
stupid choice as Party leader" not that he had been critical of the action 
that's been taken.   What he said was that the government had failed to 
get its message across very well.   But that was enough to trigger the 
attack.  In every other respect, Mr Duncan-Smith could hardly have been 
more supportive.  TOO supportive, well there are rumblings in his party 
that he aligned himself so closely with Tony Blair right from the beginning 
that the only role he can play now is a more or less silently supportive 
one.  Mr Duncan-Smith is on the line.
                        Good afternoon Mr Duncan-Smith.

IAIN DUNCAN-SMITH:            Good afternoon John.

HUMPHRYS:                 Is there a danger do you think 
that your policy is  counter-productive - that's to say nobody takes any 
notice of you when you support the government and when you offer mild criticism 
they drop on you like a ton of bricks?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                No,  I think that our attitude 
here as the opposition is an important and valuable one.  Our role is to 
make sure that we support the government as long as we believe that they're 
right and carrying out the right action.. I believe they are and I believe 
the Prime Minister has been, in supporting the Americans and making sure 
that we do everything to bring al-Qaeda, Bin Laden and others to justice. 
 And I also recognise that there is a need to deal with Taliban, because 
it's Taliban who are shielding al- Qaeda and the third and most important 
factor which is the delivery of humanitarian aid into Afghanistan, I also 
recognise that you can't really deliver that in the quantity you require 
until you've dealt with Taliban.  So the government is right.  As regards 
to whether or not I should back them, well, I think it's right not to play 
silly political games.  We have a very, very important crisis on our hands 
and I don't think the British people would forgive us quite rightly if 
we sought to make short-term political capital out of something which is 
a much longer term problem.  I will of course make observations that I 
think are relevant  privately and if necessary publicly, but I don't think 
that I will heed those who say I should take short-term attacks on the 
government.  I don't intend to do that. 

HUMPHRYS:                    So, you're saying that 
at the moment as far as you're concerned, even though many people are saying 
they need to push harder, you're saying that everything they're doing is 
right?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                No. I said that their purpose 
and their principles and objectives are correct.  As I observed in the 
week, my observation was simply that the government needed to do more on 
the home front to make sure that the British people understood that the 
war aims, particularly the aim of dealing with Taliban is critical to actually 
bringing bin Laden and al Qaeda to justice, and that there is a logical 
military process to that which I support. That was simply what I was saying 
at the time, but what I do say to those who get frustrated, we have plenty 
of other issues on which quite rightly to deal with the government and 
we are, issues from the Health Service and public services generally - 
their problem over Railtrack and various other crises they've got themselves 
into, and difficulties with the economy.  We'll attack and be a normal 
opposition on all of those, but what we will do on this particular crisis 
and the objectives over Afghanistan is to be as supportive as we possibly 
can to make sure that the British people get a loyal opposition when they 
need that.

HUMPHRYS:                    So you're not even prepared 
to say that you think that maybe they should push a little harder, and 
I mention that because we've heard a number of people as I'm saying, including 
Henry Kissinger who has been in London this week, saying it would be wrong 
to believe there is an unlimited period of time, so clearly he feels that 
there's rather more urgency about this than the United States and we seem 
to be displaying.  Do you share any sense of unease about that?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                No, I don't. I mean I listened 
to  - I read rather Henry Kissinger's speech and I talked to him afterwards, 
and I'm in agreement that the Allies must make as best progress as they 
can as quickly as they can because there are limits to how they can conduct 
themselves through the winter.  I accept all of that.  I don't believe 
however for one moment is that the military chiefs or the politicians on 
either side of the Atlantic in government are actually dragging their feet 
for any particular purpose.  The truth is what we have to do, and I think 
we're seeing it now with the B-52's, is a gradual tightening of the noose 
around Taliban and of course bin Laden, and that takes time. The pressure 
of those bombing raids will grow and eventually that, plus ground troops, 
will put the final pressure on I believe to break the Taliban, and I pointed 
out during the week that attacking Kosovo was much the same process. It's 
only when the enemy recognise that ground troops are about to be deployed 
or are being deployed that they finally begin to suffer the breakdown that 
is essentially there as a result of the bombing - they can't communicate, 
they can't reinforce, their equipment that they're hiding has to come into 
the open, and that means it's open to air attack, and that can be taken 
out.  Those sort of things happen once ground troops are on the ground 
and of course I urge the governments obviously to get on with that as quickly 
as possible, but clearly I don't believe that anyone is dragging their 
feet for the sake of it.

HUMPHRYS:                    Well, exactly.  You say 
you urge them to get on with that as quickly as possible.  You may have 
heard on of your own MPs, Nicholas Soames this morning saying that they 
really must press on with this now, because if something isn't done before 
the winter and the Taliban are able to survive more or less, I say more 
or less - we don't know precisely how damaged they've been - but more or 
less undamaged throughout the winter period, then that's going to give 
them a) a colossal propaganda advantage and b) an opportunity to regroup 
and all the other things that go with that.

DUNCAN-SMITH:                Yes, but I do think that 
everybody should recognise this is a potentially long process.  We are 
dealing with a country a long, long way away from either Britain or America, 
and therefore building up the right number of ground troops in the area 
to mount that assault is going to take time.  I think Sir Timothy made 
the point quite graphically that even doing that in the Gulf, the Gulf 
War was difficult enough and took time, and I think therefore you have 
to understand that this is going to take time.  But, and I do genuinely 
believe this, that the purpose and resolve of the governments concerned 
is very, very clear, and I want to make absolutely certain that obviously 
the British people understand that the objective is to get rid of Taliban, 
because Taliban will stop us getting to al-Qaeda and bin-Laden.  That means 
ultimately the deployment of ground troops and whatever that takes, so 
we need to be certain that that is going to happen

HUMPHRYS:                    But when we talk about 
the Gulf War, as you say Tim Garden talked about that himself. What we 
saw there was a build up, a massive build up of ground troops over quite 
a long period of time and then when the time was right, they went in. Obviously 
a very different position in Afghanistan.  But we are not seeing a build 
up of ground troops as we speak and it would, if we were going to do that, 
take  very long time indeed and we'd have to have the support of neighbouring 
countries that we don't have. So, where is this invasion going to come 
from, have you given that a lot of thought?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                Well I have, but John I have 
to tell you as somebody who has served myself, I would be very reluctant 
to let the press know exactly what scale of build up is going on because 
that will send signals to Taliban that may turn out in the end to be disruptive. 
 There may well and I believe probably, some fairly substantial build up 
going on in the countries surrounding Afghanistan and my concern therefore 
is that we shouldn't immediately assume that that is not taking place. 
 I believe that there are sufficient forces being built up and I think 
already the governments, particularly President Bush has made it absolutely 
clear that they are committed where necessary to the deployment of ground 
troops. So we may see some early smaller deployments but I believe that 
ultimately, if necessary, there will be very sufficient ground troop deployments. 


HUMPHRYS:                    But we would know, wouldn't 
we, if there were this great build up going on.  They'd have to come from 
somewhere, they'd be seen leaving their bases, we'd know because we have 
correspondents all over the place.  We'd know whether they were in neighbouring 
countries, which is  the only place they could be, as an effective invasion 
force.  We'd know if all that was going on, wouldn't we?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                Well may be, I'm not sure 
that that is the case. I mean I don't think the media should always assume 
that that know everything. 

HUMPHRYS:                    I grant you that. 

DUNCAN-SMITH:                The reality is that there 
are good reasons why it would suit the allies purpose to keep some of these 
deployments fairly quiet, so that if and when any assault takes place, 
the element of surprise, which is absolutely critical. Those who've studied 
warfare know that surprise is hugely important, that element is maintained 
and therefore Taliban are left guessing as to when, where or exactly what 
time or what scale will the deployment of ground troops will be.  So the 
reality is that I think the allies would want to keep that fairly quiet. 


HUMPHRYS:                    And you're quite clear 
in your own mind that that is what is needed. Some sort of - you're not 
going to say where, you're not going to say when, you don't know obviously, 
none of us knows, but that some sort of serious ground invasion is going 
to be needed at some stage?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                I hope that it wouldn't be 
needed but we need to prepare for that eventuality and if necessary to 
deploy ground troops. The reality is that the present bombing of the Taliban 
by the way is not carpet bombing, it's quite specific bombing of their 
front line, carpet bombing is just taking out a large area and flattening 
it.  That will have a dramatic effect I believe on their soldiers, as Sir 
Timothy said, day after day, if you are being bombed by that weight of 
bombs, then your morale does tend to suffer, particularly if you are not 
in very well prepared positions.  So that will have an effect and at the 
right moment and this is critical, you don't deploy ground troops until 
it's clear that the morale of the enemy is lowered, that their ability 
to respond is lowered, their communications are broken and they can't reinforce. 
That sort of effect is when you deploy ground troops because they have 
the most effect for the minimum number of casualties and I am very much 
in favour of keeping that point clear. It is important that if we deploy 
them and when we deploy them, that they have maximum effect and I believe 
that is very much the plan at the moment. 

HUMPHRYS:                    Just have a quick word 
about the diplomacy here. It does seem to be going a bit pear shaped doesn't 
it.  I mean we saw Tony Blair going to the Middle East, standing alongside 
a known supporter of terrorism being made to look a bit silly and having 
to listen to the sort of things he didn't want to hear.  Was that damaging 
in your view?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                Well I don't suppose the 
Prime Minister would have liked the headlines very much when he came back 
and clearly it was, as always, these things often are a gamble that we 
could have gained more than we'd have lost in the sense that it might have 
brought Syria closer to the sense that they now have to end their involvement 
with these extremist terrorist groups and that there may have been some 
way of bringing them in. Clearly that hasn't necessarily worked, but I 
think nonetheless we need not to lose sight of one important point, that 
building of the coalition is about support for the effort in Afghanistan 
and that therefore the mission dictates the coalition, not the other way 
round.  And I think as long as that remains clear then all of these meetings 
should be set in context, which is if they succeed, then that's excellent, 
if they don't, they don't however damage our military mission.  That is 
absolutely vital to get rid of Taliban, to bring al-Qaeda to justice and 
ultimately to get the right amount of humanitarian aid into Afghanistan. 
That mission, or those aims dictate the coalition, not the other way round. 


HUMPHRYS:                    Your Foreign Secretary..former 
Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind said...our former Foreign Secretary Malcolm 
Rifkind said it had been very unwise, do you not share that or are you 
being very cautious and very support again here?

DUNCAN-SMITH:                Well I don't want to get 
involved in you know hindsight here, I think that whilst of course, you 
know we would have wanted there to have been a successful visit, if a visit 
took place and that clearly that wasn't necessarily successful, it doesn't 
mean to say that fundamentally it was wrong to try and bring Syria in. 
The reality is that it was always going to be difficult, Syria is far too 
heavily involved with some of these extremist terrorist groups and so we 
recognise that.  But the important thing is as I said earlier on not to 
lose sight of what this is all about, which is essentially bringing al-Qaeda 
and Bin Laden to justice and to do that, we need to deal with them in Afghanistan 
and deal with Taliban. That's the mission and that mission dictates the 
coalition and whatever else takes place, is peripheral to that. 

HUMPHRYS:                    Iain Duncan-Smith, thanks 
very much indeed.