Last week, Afghanistan suffered its worst-ever suicide bomb attack, with more than 70 people killed, including school children and Afghan politicians, in the relatively peaceful northern area of Baghlan.

Coalition forces have been struggling against the Taliban, with casualties from Britain, Canada, the US and Australia in recent weeks.

According to the former head of Britain's armed forces, Afghanistan poses a greater threat to global stability than Iraq. General Sir Mike Jackson has just written his autobiography, called 'Soldier', after stepping down from Britain's top military post in August last year. Since returning to civilian life, he's been widely critical of the US-led operations in Iraq, accusing the former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of being intellectually bankrupt.

Edmund Roy spoke to General Sir Mike Jackson in London.

Edmund Roy: General Sir Mike Jackson, welcome to the program.

General Sir Mike Jackson, former head of British Armed Forces: Thank you very much indeed.

Edmund Roy: In your book, you describe building a force for deployment as akin to assembling an orchestra. What's your view of the orchestra of troops in Iraq right now?

General Sir Mike Jackson: It's an analogy which I used to try and help the layman understand what we mean by force generation. Iraq is - it's quite an interesting situation at the moment, because it does appear that in the centre - Baghdad and in the centre of Iraq - the US surge has had some successful outcomes.

Certainly, the levels of violence seem to be coming down. As far as Britain is concerned, in the south of Iraq, as you know we left Basra city, we handed it over to the Iraqi security forces about a month ago. We've already handed over three of the four provinces, and the announcement has been made that the remainder of Basra province will be handed over to the Iraqis by the end of this year. And so certainly for the UK, our troop commitment is coming down.

”I think there's some interesting politics going on.”

I think there's some interesting politics going on as well - it seems to me that the Sunni are coming to the view that they can't bomb themselves back into the position they had before, and that they will have to come to a political accommodation, and I hope they do and I hope they do it very quickly.

Edmund Roy: Now, President Bush maintains that US forces are not losing the war in Iraq, but clearly they are not winning the war either, what exactly are they doing wrong?

General Sir Mike Jackson: Well, I think we need to be careful here that we don't fall into the trap of judging progress or otherwise in Iraq purely by what is happening on the ground as between insurgents and the coalition and indeed Iraqi forces. It's rather more complicated than that. At the end of the day, you've got a political problem and that is - or has been – an unwillingness by the Sunni who were in power under Saddam Hussein's regime by some of them to accept that that way of doing things is over.

That's a political problem, and there can only be to it a political solution at the end of the day. Yes of course, the security forces have a very important job to do in terms of reducing the violence but my thesis here is that it needs a political outcome to solve that original political problem.

Edmund Roy: Nevertheless, they did make mistakes and what are those mistakes? You actually are quite scathing of Donald Rumsfeld, how could one man cause so much damage?

General Sir Mike Jackson: Well, all of this goes back, of course, to 2002 and to the - I'm so sorry, 2003, and to the autumn of 2002 - I never had any concerns that the actual manoeuvre operation to defeat Saddam Hussein's forces in the field was going to be not that demanding, and it would not take very long. In fact, I think I say in the book, my estimate at the time was two weeks it took two and a half or thereabouts.

But the concern, the real concern, was what follows after that. Because we have some experience to draw on - what happens in a failed state or post-conflict in the Balkans, for example, where I was involved myself. And it's a complex challenge. It's very easy to say what you're trying to achieve is a country at peace with itself, at peace with its neighbours, in its extant borders, representative government, demobilisation where that's required, return of refugees, an economy moving forward - all of that is easy to say.

”It's very complex and very challenging to achieve and it needs thinking through.”

It's very complex and very challenging to achieve and it needs thinking through. And I recount in the book that whereas the State Department, who, for most of 2002, had the lead in thinking about how to handle a post-conflict Iraq quite late in the day - very late in the day - I think it was either late January or early February 2003 - that planning responsibility was switched from the State Department to the Pentagon.

And the political leadership in the Pentagon for whatever reason, and I don't understand it, I think just regarded this planning as superfluous, wasn't necessary, all that needed to be done to defeat Saddam Hussein's forces, depose Saddam Hussein himself, put in a provisional government, and everything would be fine. Well, I'm afraid it's not like that. It's far more difficult.

Edmund Roy: Is Iran the next trouble spot? The rhetoric coming out of Washington, for instance, sounds exactly similar to the rhetoric that came out a few months before the war in Iraq.

General Sir Mike Jackson: Iran is a real concern. I see reported in the British press this morning, an announcement by Tehran that they now have 3,000 centrifuges, which is a critical figure, is my understanding.

If indeed the intent is to go down a weapons route so there is no - how to put it? - holding back, it seems, by Tehran about what they're doing. They're almost crowing to the world that this is what's happening. And I think a nuclear armed Iran with a government which people - certainly in the West - have difficulty in having confidence of responsibility there is the stuff of nightmares, and it will take a lot of diplomatic heavy-lifting, I think, to change that - I wouldn't want to speculate on any other form of action now.

Edmund Roy: Now, you've been quoted as saying the war in Afghanistan is strategically more important than the war in Iraq. Why is that?

”We have to see this through, and it'll be a long haul, I suspect.”

General Sir Mike Jackson: The whole genesis of the appalling attacks on the US, on 9/11, the whole genesis of that, goes to that critical area in southern Afghanistan up against the Pakistan border. And under the Taliban regime, al-Qaeda had safe haven in that part of the world, where they were able to prepare and to train, and to my judgement, if that were a - or to put it another way around - if NATO and the West were to decide that they no longer wished to pursue the campaign alongside the Afghan security forces themselves, I fear that the Taliban would overrun, again, the duly elected government in Kabul, and we would be back to square one if not worse. We have to see this through, and it'll be a long haul, I suspect.

Edmund Roy: The role of Pakistan here is obviously crucial as a Western ally - is Pakistan doing enough, and do we have - does the West have enough leverage in Pakistan to make it do what the West wants?

General Sir Mike Jackson: Two very good questions. And of course, Pakistan is going through a particularly turbulent time at the moment - both in the political situation and no doubt in parallel, not unconnected, the security situation there as well. I mean, I visited the border area some two and a half years ago, two years ago, and I remember meeting and being briefed by the senior Pakistan commander who took me through what they had done in terms of security operations - I found it impressive. But not long after that, President Musharraf came to a form of treaty or deal or whatever word you wish to use with the leaders in the tribal territories, which led to the withdrawal of the Pakistan army. Whether that was a - in the long run - a good move, we shall see. I have my concerns about that.

Edmund Roy: General Sir Mike Jackson, thank you for joining us on Asia Pacific Focus.

General Sir Mike Jackson: Thank you very much.