this is bbc news. the headlines: hundreds of thousands of people have rallied in cities across the us to demand stricter gun laws. the march for our lives was led by survivors of the mass shooting at a school in florida last month which killed 17 people. washington saw the biggest anti—gun rally for a generation. australia's cricket captain steve smith has apologised after admitting his side deliberately tampered with the ball during the third test against south africa. one player was seen using an object taken from his pocket to rough up the ball. the head of cricket australia said it was a very sad day for the game. tributes have been paid to the french policeman who sacrificed himself to save hostages during friday's islamist attack. president macron said arnaud beltrame showed "exceptional courage," and died a hero. three other people were killed and 16 injured in the attack in the south of france. those are the latest headlines. there'll be a full bulletin at the top of the hour. now on bbc news, afghanistan:

fighting the war forever. high above the mountains of north—eastern afghanistan, f—16fighterjets take turns to refuel. radio: second eyes on him. roger that. looking good, nice and stable. we are a little slow. minutes later... all right, disconnect. ..they are ready to get back into the fight, providing air cover to afghan forces battling insurgent fighters. 17 years in, and america's longest war shows no sign of ending. when donald trump became president, it looked like he might pull the troops out of afghanistan once and for all. but instead, in august, he upped the ante, increasing troop numbers and promising that america would stay until, in his words,

the war is won. thank you very much. thank you. please be seated. the men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. they deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight, and to win. afghan commandos launched a night raid on a taliban position. —— afghan commandos launch a night raid on a taliban position. despite improvements in elite troops like these, the fact is that afghanistan still looks like a quagmire. the latest figures show that last year, the taliban expanded their territory. meanwhile, opium production is at record levels and injanuary, insurgents launched a series of horrific terrorist attacks in kabul and elsewhere around the country. generaljohn nicholson is one of the longest serving officers in afghanistan. he is in his third year as the commander of us and nato

forces and is reckoned to have played a pivotal role in formulating america's new policy. so, this, of course, is america's longest war. it is one that started because of 9/11 and the attacks on our country which emanated from here. my office was in the pentagon and struck by the plane that hit the pentagon on 9/11, so for me and many of us it is personal. it wasn't clear that president trump was going to commit america to this conflict. you advocated quite hard that america should continue, why did you argue? the military chain of command is one voice and our policy process just as in any country, and the military assessment was that because of the number of terrorist groups in the region, there is a total of 21 such groups in the region, violent extremist organisation, terrorist organisations, etc, the highest concentration

anywhere in the world, so this threat, if we don't keep pressure on this threat, the risk is that we will suffer more attacks on our homeland from the region. so we believe from a military perspective that remaining here, albeit in a much smaller form then we once were, enables us to maintain adequate pressure on these groups and protect our homeland. back at the peak of the war in 2013—2014, there up were to 130,000 troops here. now there will be about 16,000, how can you possibly expect to make a difference with such a tiny number of troops compared to the peak? well, the difference is today we have 320,000 afghans under uniform. so we came here and surged to 150,000 troops, this was only for about 18 months. it was during that period we began to grow the afghan army to its present size. as soon as we grew this army to a size approaching us, we drew down our troops sharply. now, at that point, i'd say we drew down too fast and too far and the exercise

we have gone through here, is rightsizing that forces so we can provide the appropriate amount of advising, training and assisting to the afghans so they can own the fight, they are the ones taking the fight to the enemy. they do need our help, yes, and they need our financial support. but they are the ones who are fighting and dying for their country and by doing that they are protecting us. but, hold on. you have been supporting them now for almost 17 years. what are you going to do now that will make a difference? number one, the end state is reconciliation. this is what the afghans want. in order to do that, there needed to be more military pressure applied to the enemy. in order to do that, there needed to be significant improvements in the afghan military. the investment in the afghan army is already well under way. one of america's top special forces officers shows me the huge training compound for o commandos on the outskirts of kabul. —— compound for commandos on the outskirts of kabul. the plan is to double the number of these elite troops to 211,000 in total.

they call these guys ‘the tip of the spear‘. it is theirjob to take the fight to the taliban. commandos like these and special forces make up just 10% of afghan troops, but they carry out 80% of offensive operations. the plans for the afghan air force are even more ambitious. the aim is that it will triple in size. afghan aircraft are already starting to take over from the us, targeting taliban positions and providing air support for operations by afghan troops. why the army and the air force, what can they bring? they bring offensive capability, so offensive capability is what is needed to break the stalemate that existed before this time, and this enables them to move into those areas where they have either been

contested or that 12% of the area that is being controlled by the taliban, and take those areas back under control of the government. 0ffensive capability. the combat here in afghanistan sits in a regional context. doesn't it? and 150 years ago when britain was fighting wars here, they call this ‘the great game', and that great game continues to play out with new players, if you like. one of the big issues brought by your president, president trump, is the role of pakistan. now, president trump was absolutely clear that as far as he is concerned pakistani has been harbouring and facilitating the taliban. now, that is a huge problem, isn't it? yes, it is, so external enablement is the only way that this insurgency continues. without that it would never survive inside the country. they have bases, training facilities, they recruit outside of the country, their leadership lives outside of afghanistan. where outside of...? you mentioned pakistan. this has been stated clearly by president trump in his august speech.

so crucially, president trump cut military support to pakistan, and said "if you continue this policy he will continue to force." are you beginning to see a difference, is beginning to change? is that beginning to change? the biggest difference is now we have a public conversation about peace. although it may be hard to draw direct linkage between the state m e nts direct linkage between the statements i president trump and the telegram willingness to talk about peace, i believe there is a link. the pressure to reconciliation is multifaceted, it is military, yes, but it is also diplomatic and social. so all these forms of pressure are what result in a conversation about peace. but is pakistan still harbouring taliban leaders? is it? we believe the enemies we are fighting are still living on the other side of the border. and so, they have pushed many of them into afghanistan and we want to give them credit for that, and through operations they have done, operations along the border, they are attending to interdict

these terrorists and stop the flow back and forth. now, the other external actor to talk about is russia. we are told by a senior police officers and military police officers within afghanistan that russia is providing weapons and resources for the taliban. we share some interest and they are clearly undermining our interest as well. we are here, as the us, to go after those terrorist who could pose a threat to any country. there is a counterterrorism objective, there is a counter—narcotics objective we share, there is an interesting peace and reconciliation. so we would hope the russians would see this opportunity to work in support of common interests as a the way forward. however, that has not been the case. what has been happening? we have seen destabilising activity by the russians, we have seen a narrative that grossly exaggerates the number

of isis fighters here, which has been used by the russians to legitimise the actions of the taliban. they provide some degree of support to the taliban. what support? frankly, it is difficult to quantify. but we have had stories written by the taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy, we have had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by afghan leaders and said "this was given by the russians to the taliban." we know russia is involved in a misinformation campaign, which will be familiar to anyone who has observed the russian behaviour elsewhere around the world. we have also seen exercises on the border. in tajikistan. yes. and so, these counterterrorism exercises but as we have the russian exercises but as we have the russian exercises before, they bring in a

large mound of equipment and then they leave some behind. the russians used the pretext of a spillover of terrorism from afghanistan as the reason to support the taliban, which of course is destabilising to the country and destabilising to the efforts of the united states and nato. this activity has picked up in parallel with the war in syria. you think this is, in a way, a proxy war that they are keeping pressure on america on through the activities of the taliban in afghanistan? this activity really picked up in the last 18—24 months. prior to that, we have not seen this kind of destabilising activity by russia here. and when you look at the timing, it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in syria. it is interesting to note the timing of the whole thing. this is what is funding afg hanistan‘s seemingly interminable conflict — opium, and the heroin it is used to produce. some 90% of the world's supply of heroin now comes from afghanistan. and production has been going through the roof. it almost doubled last year, according to un figures.

the taliban and other insurgent groups tax production and use the revenue from that to fund their operations. narcotics is a hugely important issue here because this is a key revenue source for the taliban as they raise money they become effectively a kind of cartel, is what we saw similarly in colombia. the danger for that is that it creates momentum for this insurgency continue. are you worried about narcotics and the role of opium in this conflict? absolutely. the dynamic you outlined is exactly what we are concerned about, despite their original religious roots, this organisation is morphing into a narcotics insurgency that now is a moneymaking enterprise and is making lots of money in areas, so there is an interest in maintaining instability, an intertest in keeping the government out in order to profit

from the drugs trade. these drugs of course find their way around the world, so yes, we are concerned about that, that this behaviour is now more about making money and sustaining the insurgency for purpose of profit than it is about their original religious and political leanings. how has this changed your tactics? we have to go after the sources of taliban revenue, though the authorities granted to me under the us south asia policy, new authorities granted by president trump enable us to target sources of taliban revenue, and narcotics is a major source of that. we are now going after narcotics. 90% of the opium that is produced in this country in areas that are under taliban control or contested. we see a clear convergence between criminal activity and the areas that are under control.

—— you don't see that in the areas under government control which is about two thirds. figures produced by an american organisation suggest the taliban is expanding this area of influence, or at least it did last year. this must be dispiriting as the commander of forces to see the taliban effectively advancing? those number came from us and we disagree, the way... the way they interpreted? the way they were interpreted. we look at population control and that government controlled 60 to 64% of the population. the bigger they have chosen to use instead of population is the figure of actual space on the ground, area on the ground. area. are you saying that is not a legitimate way to describe the territory controlled? we think that the population is much more relevant than the empty desert. but regardless, the offensive capability of the afghans is going to expand that control, to drive the enemy to more right areas of the country, even more open they already are in order to eventually forced them to either reconcile

all live in irrelevance. now, we're in the 17th year of the war and you sound very confident that, you know, the capability of the afghan army are going to increase really significantly. i mean, haven't 17 years taught you that effectively — you used the word yourself — we are in a stalemate here, aren't we? that stalemate is done with the south asia... you have moved on from that... yes and... you've broken it? that was a case when i was here two years ago, when i first took command, but it is no longer the case with the us—south asia policy and the momentum that we are gaining with that, and this is because of this army, this afghan army, is getting better, is proving itself on the battlefield, the air force is growing in capability — the air force last year ran almost twice as many strikes, the afghan air force, as the us air force. so that was never a factor previously. the commandos that you visited, these commandos are doubling in size so, with 30 companies of commandos, they control two thirds of the population, with twice that many, they're going to be able

to expand into these new areas. well, hold on, we can see that the taliban can project force right into the heart of kabul because it did so with these awful bombs that were...and other attacks in late december and january. we saw terrible attacks here in kabul. what does that tell us about the state of the war? of course, the suicide bombers are on a one—way trip, theyjust have to make it in. they only have to be good once, to get in. these are horrendous attacks, and the death of any civilian is something we want to avoid. so this is exposing the hypocrisy of the taliban. i mean, if they theoretically are here for the good of the afghan people, to replace a government, why are they killing the citizens that they have said in their annual statements, they are trying to protect? so you're saying these bombs in kabul and elsewhere

in the country — these are a measure of success, is that what you are saying? no, i am not. i'm saying, it shows a lowering of ambition. in 2016, for example, they tried eight times to take cities and each time they were defeated, with heavy losses. in 2017, they then focused more on districts, and this is where you saw modest gains at sometime and then the afghans would come in and retake the district. and again, we ended up at about the same place. in september of 2017, following the announcement by president trump of the south asia policy, the taliban leadership held a meeting in quetta, and they discussed their strategy going forward. they made a deliberate decision to no longer try to seize cities or districts but rather to resort to suicide attacks as a way to maintain their relevance and to show that they were still present. this is an lowering of ambition from seizing terrain and controlling population to conducting terrorist attacks. and as the commander of forces here, how do you interpret that? well, we have to adjust to that, to protect the population. i view it as a lowering of ambition which means

that our pressure is working. the casualties that they suffer from trying to seize cities and carve out a space of afghanistan that they can call their own is not working and what we anticipate this year is more suicide attacks and an assassination campaign to go after specific leaders. so again, when you look at the spectrum, from conventional war to terrorism, they are moving down the spectrum, and closer to terrorism as an organization. in the weeks after those horrific attacks, president ghani made a peace offer to the taliban — a very generous peace offer. he said, we will not pursue criminal action against you, we will free leaders from prison, we will lift sanctions against you, we will give you freedom of movement in the country, we will let you set up a party... it is the most comprehensive peace offer to the taliban since the afghan war started in 2001, but president ghani's government is deeply divided on this as it is on most other issues. the taliban is not a coherent

organisation either, its divisions have made it a tough enemy to fight and it will also hamper any peace negotiations — even if some taliban do wish to make peace, there are likely to be others that are minded to resist any agreement with the afghan government. this is an enemy that you have been fighting for 16 years. were you surprised how generous president ghani's offer was? did you support the offer? we support the offer. we want to see a peaceful reconciliation in afghanistan. what you do not see necessarily in the public domain, is at the back channel communication that's going on. many in the taliban are tired of this war. there are many taliban who disagree with these tactics. they fundamentally disagree with attacks on universities, with blowing up civilians, with blowing up a hospital. i mean, they disagree

with this approach. and what we see are fissures emerging inside the taliban leadership. and this outraged that is occurring on multiple levels is what president ghani was addressing here, because we think there are many in the taliban, just like there are many afghans here, who want to lay down their arms and see peace and stability return to their country. so why haven't we had a response from the taliban? i don't know, you have to ask the taliban. i mean, this is...he put a generous offer out there, they wrote an open letter to the people of america. this needs to be an afghan—led process, this needs to be a process between afghans so we are hopeful that the taliban will respond to this and will engage in a peaceful reconciliation. now, president trump's policy is conditions—based. that means, until the success here, how long do you think this will last? i'm encouraged that six—month after president trump announced the policy, we have peace offers being discussed by both

the government and the taliban. i do not think this is any coincidence. it is the pressure that this represents and what this represents, when we say is it a conditions—based policy, this is a fundamental change from the past and — it's an important point here — it demonstrates that we have the will, and war is a contest of wills, and that we have now demonstrated the will to see this through, and i think that demonstration of will has contributed to getting these two parties to the point where they are both talking about peace in their own way. when president trump spoke about his commitment to afghanistan, he talked about winning here, he talked about victory. what would victory in afghanistan look like? winning is a reconciliation amongst the warring parties, where they lay down their arms and bring stability to afghanistan. that stability would then enable pressure to be kept on the terrorist groups so that no terrorist attacks emanate from this region. but we know, from working alongside these brave afghan soldiers, for all these years, that they are ready to keep pressure on those terrorists but it is a reconciliation that brings us to that point.

so victory could mean a government including the taliban? this has to be an afghan solution. we in the international community are here to help the afghans and to prevent terrorist attacks emanating from the region. so, yes, whatever path the afghans take... president ghani laid out some of the conditions — respect for the constitution, for human rights, for women rights, in particular, a renouncement of violence and terrorism and so these elements have been laid on the table not as preconditions but as things that they'd be looking for. but the taliban haven't got back, they haven't answered president ghani. what would your message be to the taliban? i hope that they take advantage of this opportunity to bring this war to a conclusion. and they have been offered very generous terms so it's a start point. what happens if they don't? we will maintain our pressure on the enemy. we're going to maintain military pressure, we're going to maintain

diplomatic pressure, and they are going to experience social pressure, continued rejection by the afghan people. how optimistic are you, almost 17 years into this conflict, that there can be a kind of resolution, a reconciliation? i think we are in a moment, now, with these offers on the table. again, much work to be done but we are in a moment now, that we have not been at before. with this discussion of peace and offer by the government, a consideration going on by the taliban, their own form of an offer to the american people. it is a moment we have not been at before and so i am hopeful that this moment will deliver the peace that all the afghans deserve, that we want, which will enable us to protect our homelands in a more secure way. and eventually leave this to the afghans to live in stability and peace. good morning.

i hate to say it. i don't think winter is ready yet to slink off into the sunset. with the clock change overnight we're into british summertime, which means some lighter evenings are with us. you will want the sunshine today to enjoy it. plenty of that on saturday across the northern half of the country. a great afternoon. more of us will see skies like that through the day. that is this area of low pressure. storm hugo pushes through spain and southern france, dragging this weather front with it. that is what brought the cloud to england and wales. patchy rain and drizzle. clearer skies following in the wake. the chance of frost around into sunday morning. ice across scotland where we have showers through the night. frost free parts of east anglia, the south—east, and the channel islands. this is where the weather front lingers. bit of a grey start.

some drizzle. that will clear. that will break up. sunny spells coming through. england and wales a better day compared with yesterday. lighter winds. pleasant in the sunshine. isolated showers cannot be ruled out in the north or northern ireland. more especially for the northern half of scotland. with some sunshine in between it should feel quite pleasant once again. a fine sunday on the way. as we go into the evening, sunset around 7:30pm. the nights are still long enough for the temperatures to drop. blue more widely on the chart to take us into monday morning. a much more widespread frost to start the day on monday. away from the towns and city centres. after a frosty start things will turn mild. then a battle begins over the days ahead. we will see atlantic air try to push its way in. these across milder conditions. mainly across southern areas. from the north and north—east colder scandinavian air will make its way back. on monday, the mild air will win out. after the frosty start, sunshine for scotland, england, wales. dating from the west through the day. sunshine turning hazy.

temperatures at lifting up after that frosty start. still in double figures for many. the rain precedes this area of low pressure which will push through overnight into tuesday. it will bring rain to most areas. a bit of snow over the higher ground. that is because cold air will be trying to push its way in on the northern edge. this is where temperatures will drop to single figures. double figures in the south. heavy, thundery showers in the morning. brightness in the afternoon. the same sort of thing on wednesday. by this stage we have more of a north—westerly wind. temperatures even dropping here. there will be outbreaks of rain and hill snow in the north. by wednesday, temperatures back into single figures. four degrees in aberdeen. hello and welcome to bbc news. hundreds of thousands of people have rallied in cities across the united states to demand stricter gun laws. the march for our lives was led by survivors of the mass shooting at a florida school last month. 0ur north america editorjon sopel reports from washington. # run, run, run.#

this wasn't some run—of—the—mill saturday morning protest by a bunch of disaffected kids. this was way, way bigger than that. far more significant. what do you hope today will achieve? i hope that congress will actually do something about gun laws. stop ignoring us! we should not have guns in schools. like, donald trump is wrong for even trying to give teachers guns at all.