Liam Fox: You Ask The Questions

Is Israel's assault on Gaza justified? Will sending in ground troops achieve anything? CARL BURKE, Peterborough

Israel has an absolute right to defend its citizens. Hundreds of rockets have been fired recently into Israeli territory from Gaza. The escalation to action on the ground risks substantial casualties on both sides. We have called for a ceasefire, which is the right decision for all involved.

Do you agree Hamas's popularity will surge in the months ahead? SARA HORTON, ELY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Related articles

• Gaza battles rage as envoys appeal for truce
• Gaza: The death and life of my father
• Bruce Anderson: Israel is in danger of fighting the last war, not the next one
• Donald Macintyre: Is regime change the ultimate goal?
• Robert Fisk: Keeping out the cameras and reporters simply doesn't work
• Mapping the crisis in Gaza
• Leading article: Gaza will not find peace until Hamas ceases to be a threat
• Gaza sliced in two by Israel's land assault
• For a child, war means mum reads you stories
• EU ceasefire campaign marred by internal discord
• With the troops: 'This is a war that we have to fight'
• Obama holds silence over Gaza
• Tim Cross: Time will show if the lessons of 2006 were learnt
• George W Bush: Hamas is entirely responsible for the Israeli invasion of Gaza0
• Search the news archive for more stories

Hamas's failure to accept Israel's right to exist is always likely to lead to instability, tension and violence. Hamas would best serve the interests of the people of Gaza by entering meaningful negotiations that can lead to peace and contribute to a workable, two-state solution in the region.

What ramifications does the conflict have for British security? MARINA WALTON, Lancaster

Any conflict in this region has an impact on our security. We have a vested interest in promoting stability in the Middle East. We live in a globalised world where each nation's economic and security interests are so interlinked into a larger, global, inter-dependent network that we have an unavoidable shared set of interests with many countries in all parts of the globe, including the Middle East.

You are a strong supporter of Israel, but doesn't unqualified support from Britain and the US in circumstances like these turn moderate Muslims against us? ALEXA FENNELL, Farnham, SURREY

British support for any ally is never unqualified. International law and values must always be obeyed.

Now that we are withdrawing from Iraq, should we be increasing our commitment in Afghanistan? JACK KEMPSON, Yeovil, SOMERSET

We are in Afghanistan for reasons of Britain's national security: to deny to al-Qa'ida and its allies the use of a failed state from which to launch attacks against the rest of the world. Constructing a stable and prosperous Afghanistan will be a difficult task. The first part of that will require a considerable military presence, probably larger than the one we currently have. Britain has shown its willingness to shoulder more than its share of this burden, but sadly too many of our Nato allies are failing to do so. Before any further British troops are committed, we need to ensure there is a proper political process to support, that our Nato allies are shouldering the burden more fairly, and that the Afghan government is dealing with issues such as the endemic corruption which blights the country.

How long can we expect British troops to be in Afghanistan? DEBORAH STRAUSS, Manchester

It is impossible to say how long troops will be needed as part of the process of constructing a stable Afghanistan, but it is likely that the international community will be needed there for many years, in one form or another.

What purpose will an inquiry into the origins of the war in Iraq serve now? ARNOLD GAVIN, LONDON

We have an obligation to learn from any mistakes made in the run-up to the war and this can only be accomplished by an inquiry. In the US, several inquiries have been conducted and these have helped to improve US policy. Since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, the Government has announced at least 50 separate reviews of different policy areas, all presumably designed better to inform future policy-making. Why is it possible to conduct reviews in these areas but not on the conduct of the Iraq War? It has been almost six years since the war began. It is vital that the process is started now before memories begin to fade.

Would you vote for war in Iraq again? TINA NICHOLSON, Nottingham

Yes, I would. We must not forget that, under the brutal and authoritarian rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a country that invaded three of its neighbours, fired Scud missiles at five of its neighbours and killed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and Iranians with chemical weapons. Does anyone believe the Iraqi people, the region or the world would have been better off with Saddam still in power?

You have often said that our troops are given inadequate resources. But your party leader, David Cameron, recently stepped back from a commitment to match Labour's spending plans. So will defence be excluded from those cuts? SHAUN PARRY, York

It is impossible to know how bad the economic wreckage will be that Labour leaves behind. It is therefore impossible to make any definitive commitments on spending at this point. Not only has Labour failed to live up to its part of the Military Covenant and failed to fully fund our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but it will leave behind a huge, unfunded liability in defence procurement for future taxpayers. No one knows how catastrophic Brown's economic legacy will be, but picking up the pieces in defence will be one of the most difficult challenges for the next government.

Are Trident nuclear submarines really the best way to spend £20bn? SOPHIE MEEHAN, LEEDS

As long as there is a nuclear threat to the UK, we must be willing to deter it. With countries such as Iran developing nuclear weapons programmes, the debate is more relevant than for several years. The next-generation nuclear deterrent will give us the best protection from the threat of nuclear blackmail. When averaged out over the 30 years or more of the programme, the real cost can be better appreciated.

There hasn't been a Strategic Defence Review for more than 10 years. Do we need another one? EMMA TENCH, London

Yes, urgently. The last Strategic Defence Review was in 1998 – pre 9/11, pre-Iraq, pre-Afghanistan. The world has changed, and so has what we ask of our armed forces. We have said we will institute a review immediately if we win the next general election. In addition, we will introduce a US-style system of quadrennial defence reviews, which will allow the process to be taken out of the political cycle.

What should the Army do to fill the 3,200 vacancies it has at present? KIM GREGGS, Newcastle

It is not simply a matter of recruitment but of recruitment and retention, affecting the numbers in the armed forces. In many ways they both require similar solutions. A range of welfare issues affecting service personnel, service families and veterans need to be dealt with, including housing, healthcare, educational attainment for service children and the issue of separation of families. From my experience of working as a doctor with the armed forces, I would say the surest way of creating unhappy service personnel is to create unhappy service families – and that is what the current Government has failed to understand.

Do you really think signing the Lisbon treaty would have a meaningful impact on our defence policy? JONATHAN HARLOW, Cardiff

Gordon Brown has misled the British public about the true extent of the Lisbon treaty's impact on British defence policy. The treaty gives the European Commission more influence than ever before: the newly-created High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (better known as the EU's foreign minister) will also serve as a vice-president in the EC, potentially blurring and confusing executive and civil service roles. But worse still, he will head the European Defence Agency and have a right of initiative for proposing EU military operations. We did not join the EU as a defence organisation. We have, still have, and will continue to have Nato as the cornerstone of our defence, with the guarantee and responsibilities that Nato's Article V brings. But duplicating Nato structures without a clearly defined role will potentially create competition for the same scarce resources. The idea that we would risk losing the defensive umbrella of America and swap it for an alliance of low-spending, non-deploying and, in some cases, neutral countries is crazy. The provisions of the treaty move us in the wrong direction – for Britain, for the EU and for Nato.

Would you be happy for a child of yours to join the armed forces? HELEN SMITH, Doncaster, SOUTH YORKSHIRE

Yes, I would be very proud if they did, and we should be very grateful that in this country we have people who are willing to place themselves in danger for our collective security.

If you were still a GP, how would you feel about being rated online by your patients? JENNIFER DARBY, Richmond-Upon-Thames, SURREY

I would be irritated that the Government seems to have an endless number of gimmicks, rather than real solutions for the health service. In general practice, in particular, it does not seem to understand the ethos of the system. Labour's plan for polyclinics, for example, fails to understand that the people who use GPs are the chronic sick, the elderly and mothers with young children. General practice in Britain is the one part of our system that other countries are keen to replicate, and Labour seems to have no feel whatsoever for it.

Would you like to be Prime Minister? And would you ever run for the Conservative leadership again? BARRY DEAKIN, Retford, Nottinghamshire

Very few politicians would not appreciate the honour of being Prime Minister, but I think running for leader once was quite sufficient.