representatives of northern cities get together to discuss the plans for london. we'll speak to one of the police officers who dealt with the paddington rail crash in oct 1999. good evening. "we will fight to win." that is now president trump's battle cry for afghanistan, a far cry from his pre—election determination that there should be an american withdrawal from the country. now he has given the pentagon authority to ramp up troop numbers, and greater autonomy to attack the taliban. also in his sights in his fort myer speech was pakistan — with the president calling for islamabad to stop providing safe havens for terrorists. mr trump said pakistan had much to gain from partnering with the international effort in afghanistan and much to lose from harbouring criminals and terrorists. taking tough on pakistan is not new, but taking meaningful action to prevent terrorism there has proven difficult.
we'll assess what levers trump has — and how he might make his ire felt. with general kelly... donald trump has appointed more generals to his cabinet than any president since world war ii. perhaps it is unsurprising that after months of infighting he has bowed to the military stands on afghanistan. last night, in a dramatic reversal of his isolationist campaign rhetoric, donald trump committed the us to a deeper commitment in its longest ever war. we must ensure they have every weapon. our troops will fight to win. we will fight to win. currently there are 8000 american troops in the country. donald trump refused to discuss numbers but it is expected that they will send an extra 4000. despite the big talk,
this is a tiny proportion of the 100,000 in the country at the height of barack 0bama's so—called surge in 2009. the secretary of defence has described the taliban itself as surging. this map shows the extent of theirfightback, with the government now in control of less than 60% of the country. perhaps the most striking today were the president's strong words for pakistan. the us government has long accused islamabad of failing to do enough. pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in afghanistan. it has much to lose eye continuing to harbour criminals and terrorists. he did not make a specific threat, but it is thought they are going to increase drone
strikes, withdrawing aid, or downgrading pakistan's status as a major non—nato ally. i'm not sure the pressure will result in pakistan backing off, it could well double down on it. but he did add a new element which is a rather explicit threat to engage india more heavily in afghanistan. that will get islamabad's attention. figures suggest there have been a28 us drone strikes since 200a. that number has fallen to just four.
pakistan would not wish to see the strikes escalate, they view them as illegal. we'll discuss what this means for the trump presidency in a moment — but first i am joined by carlotta gall, who for 12 years afghanistan and pakistan for the new york times. her book ‘the wrong enemy: america in afghanistan', argues that america was fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong country and should have instead focused their efforts towards pakistan. also with us is associate professor christine fair from georgetown university, who served as a political officer for the un to afghanistan. good evening to you both. is this the right message and the right threat to pakistan? undoubtedly. for the first time we've heard some really strong torque. he's talking about them changing. we've got to see what he follows through with.
trump has talked like this for a long time. it is interesting he brings it out so strongly today. what do you think should be the first lever on pakistan? what would hurt it? the first thing they've already done is conditionality of the huge amount of money that they give to pakistan every year. you can condition that on performance and they've already started that. the secretary of defence held up 50 million not long ago. then there are drone strikes, like the strike before.
essentially president trump is building on barack 0bama's attitudes but do you agree it will have more traction this time? we are in complete agreement. i was excited to see her on this segment. we have been consistently saying the real enemy is pakistan. i would go further. the biggest programme is the coalition support fund. this is where pakistan gets $1 billion a year to do it as sovereign countries are supposed to do. i think we should get rid of that programme altogether. paying pakistan to do what countries are supposed to do actually does violence to that commitment. we should completely re—examine ourforeign, military assistance, provide them no access to platforms
like f—igs that allow it to continue aggression towards india. we should be willing to provide platforms that will aid counter—insurgency. providing them with f—igs is simply preposterous. you cut her off when she was making a really important point that we have made repeatedly, that we need to think about smart sanctions. not only visa denials but going after generals but also civilians, intelligence operatives, with whom we have reliable information that they are part of terrorist organisations. we are in complete agreement that the way forward is notjust denying aid. we need to develop the fortitude to develop sanctions. this is going to quickly run us into the very real concern that every policymaker
in washington raises and that is the nuclear arsenal of pakistan. they basically use it to blackmail us. coming back to you, as trump indicated enough that he would be prepared to lose the special relationship he's got with pakistan? should he have gone further? he made the point that the special relationship may be there, but they are killing our soldiers, as well as afghans. he drew a line that we are amazed that america has not done. what is there to lose? a nuclear strike? he is standing up to that. i think he will call their bluff. he is leaving it to his general to decide where and when. is the signal that you're going to send fewer than 5000 more troops really
going to scare the taliban back from the areas they've been taking recently? that is not the point. the 5000 will be doing training and assisting, holding the line. the taliban are attacking provincial capitals every month and the americans need to go and help the afghanistan forces. that is what they are doing. would it be acceptable to the american people to commit more troops to afghanistan? is that out the question? i don't think it is out of the question. to trump's credit, he laid out wide the americans need to continue caring about afghanistan. —— why. if there is continued leadership in explaining that afghanistan and — that pakistan is the epicentre
of some of the most pressing american national security concerns, americans will go along with it. there will be bipartisan support. this may be one of the issues where we see bipartisanship. particularly the idea of bringing in india as a more forceful partner. back in washington, some were wondering today what president trump's foreign policy u—turn might say about the shape of his presidency. last week mr trump's former aide steve bannon — having been fired from the white house — told the readers of his right wing breitbart news that the trump presidency he had campaigned for was over. today his website was suitably critical of the afghanistan announcement. someone else with strong views
on the subject is erik prince — the founder and former boss of the blackwater mercenary group. until recently mr prince had hoped the president might agree to a plan to withdraw troops from afghanistan and leave securing peace there to the private sector. he says he was invited to the president's camp david summit to draw up the plans — but following the change in personnel at the white house, the invitation was withdrawn. mr princejoins me now from washington. good evening to you. you have an history of running mercenary operations in the middle east. what was the plan you were putting forward to the white house? blackwater was not a mercenary organisation but we employed americans serving abroad. i wrote an op—ed that said how we could end the war. i spoke about the need for a viceroy. it was not to rule afghanistan. it is to be one leader that
would coordinate it. we had the department of defence and the caa in pakistan and afghanistan. there has been no unity of command. it has been very chaotic. that is why we have spent close to $1 trillion in afghanistan alone. this year, they will consume more than the uk defence budget just in afghanistan. as secretary mattis said, we are not winning. you concede that it is a loaded term. was this going to be yourself? absolutely not. it should be a senior us official, someone with defence, business and
intelligence experience. we've been going round and round for 16 years. we are figuring out a way to tie this off. you might say president trump, having listened to the generals around him, has shown a certain maturity today in actually doffing his cap to their views. or is that a mistake? the president campaigned against this notion and resisted it for the first seven months of his presidency. the pentagon kept coming back to him with just only the option of more troops and more money as we have been doing for the past 16 years and it has not worked. i do not think the policy will last long. even the rules of engagement, the taliban has had three open—air victory parades in the last three months. that does not require any more
troops from the pentagon, it requires coordination and speed and innovation from the pentagon to get after them. the pentagon has become so much of the bureaucracy it cannot operate at the speed of the taliban. you are saying that the people employed out with the pentagon and us military would be able to use different methods, such as the people you are engaged with do? let me clarify, this needs to be a true afghan solution. the afghans continually resist a foreign occupation force which they've had for 16 years. my concept is to employ long—term contract is that would attach to each battalion, live and train with them, but with them and if necessary fight side—by—side with them. a few foreign professionals
to provide structural support for each battalion combined with an air support and you have a very different and higher performing afghan army. in the days after september 11 you 100 cia officers —— in the days after september 11 you had 100 cia officers and a couple of 100 special forces, and they devastated the taliban. they can be defeated. you caught the attention of the president and a steve bannon and you're now close to steve bannon. he has said over the weekend that the donald trump presidency that he fought for is over. do you agree? the president has a lot of different voices in his ears. i believe the president finally caved on this issue with going back to the same plan for the pentagon really because of the fiasco that happened in charlottesville, he felt had not politically and he went with it.
i do not think it is a decision he will stay with for long. he needs to find a way to do this because of the mid—term elections and the next election the people who voted for him by the people sending their sons and daughters, that are still dying. so you do not think he will stick with this plan for long, due think there is still hope for your plan? what i am laying out is basic soldiering. it is how the east india company operated with the presidency armies. not trying to develop a colonial force, this is an afghan solution, professional soldiers attached to the afghan army. by even the united nations definition that does not make them mercenaries. under afghan rules of engagement and the code of militaryjustice, it is a much cheaper and much smaller footprint way and proven to be effective over the centuries. to build an indigenous stand on its own against these terrorist
organisations resident in afghanistan. thank you forjoining us. it's little more than two months since the grenfell disaster, and for many involved — residents, others the neighbourhood who watched the horror unfold, volunteers, nurses, firefighters — the imprint of that traumatic day will always be with them, and hard to cope with. 0nly yesterday, the head of the london fire brigade, da ny cotto n, revealed she is receiving counselling following the blaze. the nhs has knocked on two and a half thousand doors in kensington and chelsea to enquire about mental health and offer advice and counselling. so far six hundred people — one hundred of them children — have been referred for further treatment. the symptoms are many and varied, including guilt that they survived when others did not. our special correspondent katie razzall has gone back to grenfell to see how people are coping. you just keep on getting flashbacks to, obviously,
the fire, and nightmares and sleep talking. it's not getting any better. ijust feel it's getting worse. this has been the biggest push on mental health in the uk there has ever been in response to one of these events. we had a bird's eye view of it. we had nowhere else to go but look at it. i see it every day. i still see people there. theresa griffin has lived beside grenfell tower on and off for five decades. we used to sunbathe on the top of it, years and years ago. they used to have no locks on it then. i was 16 and everyone used to go up there. so that night, you were here? yes, that tree wasn't there, there wasn't so much, so many bushes there. so you could see everything. there was a glow. it was the weirdest fire. in this close—knit community it
isn't just survivors of the fire who are experiencing flashbacks. local residents like theresa watched, powerless to save their neighbours. i could see, there was two people there that stood out for me. there was a friend of mine, tony disson. lived on the very top floor. i've known him all my life. and he was talking to people out the window. and this went on for hours. and then, nothing. and there was a woman over in the corner and she just shouted for someone to help her kids. she didn't care about herself, she just wanted her kids, come and get my kids. i can't find any answers in my faith. the church doesn't give me any solace at all, which is the first time in my life that i've never got any answer from myself, for myself. in this vicinity there are whole families who are traumatised. while younger children can become withdrawn and fearful, older ones react to tragedy more like adults. i have to take my daughter to bed at night.
she is 1a. i didn't have to do that when she was six. and this fear that she has of losing, you know, herfriends, and this guilt. and a child shouldn't feel guilt like that. 1a years of age, you know, she wasn't in the fire, so she feels this terrible weight on her. she lost two really quite close friends. my daughter didn't know what fear was in the true sense of the word. she knows what fear is now. and that you don't always go to bed and get up. and it's something that didn't need to happen, that's the killer, it didn't need to happen. and it's down to a pound note, and that's heartbreaking. my child is priceless, and their children were priceless. normally major incidents involve people from all over a wide geographical area.
this is a situation where people are in one place. so you've got a big concentration of problems. but also people are networked together so you can both be traumatised yourself and also bereaved, lost friends, and so that makes for a very complicated situation that kind of ripples out. nhs mental health outreach workers have knocked on 2200 doors since the fire. this is the uk's largest ever mental health response to an event of this kind. thank you. so far 600 people have been referred for further treatment including 100 children. knock knock. hi, good afternoon. hello. come in. thank you. hello. good afternoon. how are you doing? pleased to meet you, i'm ross. this woman's flat faces grenfell tower. i am fine now, thank you very much.
but at the beginning i wasn't able to sleep at all. i hadn't slept for three nights following the incident. nightmares and sleeplessness are a normal reaction to a trauma. if they endure it can be a sign of psychological problems. i am ok now. i keep busy with the community. luckily for this woman, her insomnia disappeared. but others haven't been so fortunate. people come and they're having sleep problems. in children there is a lot of bedwetting. people have a heightened state of anxiety. they don't want to talk and communicate. and you can see both ends of the scale in one person in the space of a day as well. you know, we have seen a range of emotions. if i had one wish it would be that people would be settled in their own home. but i know that is proving very difficult. but that would be very helpful because one of the problems of you being traumatised is you don't feel safe. and trying to get that safety feeling back is very important. 155 of grenfell tower's households
are still in emergency accommodation in hotels. like paul who lived on the sixth floor of grenfell and woke up in his smoke—filled flat to the sound of screaming. he has been in this hotel since the fire and says he can't be alone. friends, nhs clinicians and even his favourite football club arsenal have been offering support and counselling. it has not got any better at the moment, it has not got any better. for me i feel it is getting a little bit worse. for me, maybe over time it might go down a bit more with the medication, the sleeping tablets and my friends being around me constantly. i think for me personally it was how i got out of the building, what i saw coming out of that building. it is the screaming, the shouting. the fact that eventually when i did get out, how lucky i was to actually get out.
and i know quite a few people that have obviously lost their lives, people who were very, very close, i would see them on a day—to—day basis and stuff. raymond barnard, who was on the 23rd floor. he watched me grow up, held me when i was a little kid. and he was one of the first people i thought of, that i was praying that they've got out alive. but he was one of the first people to be confirmed dead. i go and see my gp once a week. i go and see my mental health sort of nurse at least once or twice. but she calls me up on a day—to—day basis to check up on me, how i'm doing. and i have another mental health support worker. paul has been offered a temporary flat, but he has been clear that he won't move in until the fire brigade has checked it, which should happen this week. after grenfell he doesn't trust the housing association's fire checks on his new home.
even in this building here i have asked quite a few times what is the fire procedure for the building, for this sort of building right now and stuff. for the hotel? yes. and obviously the room i'm in now as well, which is good for me, i feel a bit more safe, is the fact that i'm literally one door away from the fire exit. it's a little over two months since the fire. a very short time for a community to come to terms with something of this magnitude. all our community wants to do is get the answers and grieve and get over it. and we really want... it's not dwindling onto it or wanting to hold onto sadness. ijust want to get over it and i want to feel, i want to wake up in the morning and like where i used to live. for now though, respite comes in small gestures. i go over every day, i light the candles at night time. at the place where all the tributes are? yes, where all the tributes are and the flowers. i put fresh water in the flowers, trim back the flowers, tidy it all up. ijust feel a little bit better at the end of the night when i come home.
what do you think that is about? why does it help? doing my penance, i suppose. you don't have to do penance. i feel like i do. i've got my child, haven't i? they haven't got their kids any more. katie razzall there. and if you or anyone you know are affected by any of the issues raised in herfilm then there is a dedicated grenfell nhs helpline available. the number is 0800 023 a650. so how long does it take to recover from something like this? is it even possible to do so? tony thompson was a superintendent with the british transport police and was one of the police officers who dealt with the paddington rail crash in october 1999 in which 31 people died and more than 500 were injured.
he is currently chair of the emergency planning society, which advises government on disasters such as grenfell, and he joins us from bristol. you were there on that dreadful day in 1999. when you hear the voices in that film about grenfell tower and the range of the trauma that people are suffering, doesn't resonate with you? —— does that resonate with you? absolutely. we heard some people saying gradually coming to terms with it. it is a long process that will go on for many months and years and different people will deal with it in different ways. your involvement at the epicentre of that crash, you went to the carriages, telling people what was happening, you stayed for 11 days.
did that have a long—term effect on you? unfortunately my experience of rail crashes goes back to the clapham crash on the 12th of december, 1988, and i remember that as vividly as i do the ladbroke grove crash. you cope with it in different ways but it never goes away. some will cope with it better than others but this is a long process. in your experience, how important is it for people to receive help as soon as possible? to have their mental state attended to as soon as possible rather than letting them beyond their own for too long. the approach we take is, the first few weeks, we try to provide people with what we call practical and emotional support. by the time we get to 12 weeks, some people will make progress, others may need counselling in the true sense and clearly,
the nhs and others are trying to identify people at risk. it is quite normal in the first days and weeks to suffer from nightmares, flashbacks, you've got that awful shell of a tower as a stark reminder. i've been in the area a number of times and wherever you look, it is there. a reminder of a lot of other disasters. normally we remove the wreckage. with grenfell, it will be there unfortunately for quite some time before it is ultimately removed. do you think there is a difference between people having individual tragedies, the experience of their own, and tragedies like paddington, grenfell? is it a different way of dealing with things? if you're on your own or if you have people about you?
does that reinforce it? what is the difference in approach? individually as opposed to a community? well, absolutely. if you are suffering on your own, death is a death. if you're part of a wider tragedy, you can share your concerns, if it is your own personal tragedy, you share it with your immediate family. there are advantages and disadvantages to both. i lost a close person through murder. i know what it is like on the family side dealing with that. it does not go away. you learn to cope with it better in small moments. i wondered if you could tell me, because of your experience, what message do you have? for a lot of people, it will get better over time.
it won't go away, you will never forget the people who lost their lives. slowly, slowly, you will get better, it may be help from friends, or the health service. gradually, it should get better. it will be more challenging for some people. i'm talking about it getting better for years. the key is to talk. exchange experiences. it will get better, but it will never go away. thank you so much. ahead of a northern powerhouse summit in leeds tomorrow, george osborne, in a mischievous flourish, ended his opinion piece in today's ft by saying that theresa may could "relaunch her premiership" this autumn by backing northern powerhouse rail
which would plug the northern cities into hs2, making it essentially high speed 3. the government responded by saying that they would go ahead with it. how does labour respond? does labour back the idea of a track which goes from liverpool— hull? we do. it is part of our shift into decentralisation. for too long we've had a need to chill out. if you back essentially a vanity project, you're giving no help to a lot of the smaller communities.
they want help for retraining. that is much more valuable, they say. that assumes that they are mutually exclusive. there's no reason why you cannot do both. it could boost the northern economy. it has a knock—on effect. we've set aside £25 billion for investment. these things cannot be taken as individual items. you've got £25 billion for education plans. what about the electrification of the transpennine express to mark the interesting thing, the government pulling away from that upset the apple cart. there needs to be a proactive plan for investment in the infrastructure. this is no use. especially when it is direct from london. london and the government have got to chill out in regard to this control over
everything that goes on. this is the way forward and that is what the leaders meeting in leeds will be sending a message about. there is no point in doing hs3 unless there are spurs which will bring people in newcastle into economic regeneration and that won't help them. of course, but this is a progressive process. across the area from liverpool—hull, you're talking about 10 million people across that corridor, not taking into account cheshire, lancashire. it is the opportunity for them all to share in the prosperity from projects like that. you are happy to subscribe to something that will be seen as a tory success? it's not a question of being a tory success. it has been on the cards for years and i will not start getting partisan. if this will be beneficial for
communities across the north, bring it on. thank you. literary festivals occasionally — almost inadvertently — set off fireworks. and that's exactly what happened at edinburgh when the booker prize winning writer zadie smith revealed that she limits the time her seven year old daughter can spend in front of the mirror each day to 15 minutes, after explaining to her that she was wasting valuable time, time that her brother didn't waste. whether she was actually applying make up the whole time zadie smith didn't make clear, but she alluded to the huge youtube industry even for pre—teens, with demonstrations of how to contour and apply strobe cream. an endeavour that, she said, can take an hour and a half. so does make—up imprison young women or can it empower them? claire coleman is a journalist and make—up brand consultant. madeleine spencer is beauty editor of inbeauty magazine. good evening to you both. let's deal, first of all, with the children. i watched these youtube videos of four—year—olds doing contouring.
where does this come from? it comes from the way that from a younger and younger age, children are exposed to much more of these influences that show them their idols. it seems to be a natural progression. i think it's ridiculous. i don't think four—year—olds need to know how to contour. they don't need to know it, but the application of make—up can be done, and i wanted to know exactly how kylie minogue did her make up. i think it is absurd spending an hour and a half on it, but the idea of wanting to emulate something is totally ingrained. but the idea that unless you do this you will not be acceptable, a lot of seven—year—olds actually
do not have a complete sense of their own physicality, they don't need it at that stage to know how pretty or handsome they could be! it is up to the parents. they have to say, you're valued, you're important. i don't think limiting that time does that. but they need to say you have plenty of other attributes other than the way that you look. it worries me. we need to take a stand on this sort of thing. we're going to have so much time where we worry about how we look and concern ourselves with as older women. we are worrying about how people perceive us. to concern themselves at such a young age, it is absolutely wrong. moving on to adults who do
or don't wear makeup. essentially, if somebody wants to spend an hour and a half in front of the mirror, it doesn't mean they are stupid, itjust means that aspect of their life is important to them. absolutely not. the idea that, as women, as feminists, we have makeup at one end of the spectrum is something we need to get over. as a feminist i'm never going to dictate to any woman how we should be spending our time. what we are talking about is a wider societal issue where women are judged if they are not making an effort with their appearance. men have a similar pressure, to some extent. it is worse for women because they have pressured to look a certain way. worse for women.
that's interesting. but the idea that looking a certain way isjust for women i don't think is true. there's an expectation to look certain way. it is across the board. as a society what do we expect of people? are we too concerned with how we look? it comes down to motivation. for somebody who enjoys make up, that is as much pleasure as painting canvas. i think there isjoy in it. i agree that the ritual of make—up is important to them, but i rail against the idea that men and women are judged on the same way on appearance. women arejudged much more harshly. thank you so much. that is it for tonight. before we go, we've been marking proms season with some live performances. tonight we have trumpeter christian scott, with his take on the track celia byjazz legend charles mingus. he'll be at the proms on thursday. goodnight.
good evening. we still have quite a lot of cloud across the uk, bringing some rain to northern ireland. a couple of inches. 50 millimetres in some parts. wet weather with some thunderstorms now working into scotland. still there on wednesday and thursday morning. some low cloud and thursday morning. some low cloud and fog across eastern scotland. that rain with us for much of the morning, lingering into the afternoon. ahead of this front, warm air across east anglia and south—east england. nevertheless, when the sunshine comes out, getting into the low 20s and even the mid— 20s. east anglia and south—east england, if it gets funny, we could see highs of 27 degrees. it would be the warmest day of august so far. tomorrow night, the rain slowed to clear away from scotland followed by a number of showers in the north—west. temperatures 13— 15
degrees. friday, generally dry in the south of the uk. to the north, a mixture of sunshine and showers. this is newsday on the bbc. i am rico hizon in singapore. 0ur this is newsday on the bbc. i am rico hizon in singapore. our top stories: bodies are found in the us warship john s mccain amid questions over whether the pacific fleet is stretched thin. president trump heads for arizona to rally support after a foreign policy u—turn on afghanistan. iam babita i am babita sharma iam babita sharma in i am babita sharma in london. also on the programme: a major victory for women's rights activists as india bans the controversial islamic practice of instant divorce. this issue will change the entire landscape of muslim laws in india.