hello, this is bbc news. these are the headlines. reports from russia say at least 37 people have died at a fire say at least 37 people have died at afire in say at least 37 people have died at a fire in a shopping more inside area. another 20 people are reported missing. the cause of the fire is not yet known. demonstrators have clashed with police on the streets of barcelona after independence supporters turned out to protest against the detention of the former cata la n against the detention of the former catalan leader carles puigdemont, who is under arrest in germany. they memorial mass has taken place in southern france in tribute to fall victims killed by an islamist gunmen on friday. the police officer who died saving the lives of hostages in a supermarket siege was also honoured. the captain of the australian cricket team steve smith has been banned from the final test after admitting drink authorising another player to tamper with the ball. he has also been fined his match fee by the icc. at ten

o'clock, mishal husain will be here with a full round—up of the day's news but before that, a special report on america's longest conflict. high above the mountains of north—eastern afghanistan, f—i6 fighter jets 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 for 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 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's 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's personal. now, 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? well, the military chain of command is one voice in 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 organisations, 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 than we once were, enables us to maintain adequate pressure on these groups and protect our homelands. back at the peak of the war in 2013—2014, there up were to 130,000 troops here. now you've got, what, it's gonna be about 16,000 troops. 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 when we came here and we surged to 150,000 troops, this was only for a period of about 18 months. and 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 what we've — the exercise we have gone through here recently

is rightsizing that force, so we can provide the appropriate amount of advising, training and assisting to the afghans so that they can own the fight, they are the ones taking the fight to the enemy. they do need our help, yes, and they do 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's going to make a difference? what we talked about was number one, the end state is reconciliation — this is what the afghans want. and then, 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 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's 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 it will triple in size. afghan aircraft are already starting to take over from the us, targeting taliban positions... radio: do you have a visual on the buildings there to the north? ..and providing air support for operations by afghan troops. why the army and the air force? what can they bring to the fray? 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 in afghanistan, they called this ‘the great game‘ and that great game continues to play out in — with new players, if you like. so, for example, one of the big issues brought by your president, president trump, is the role of pakistan here. now, president trump was absolutely clear that, as far as he is concerned, pakistan 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 external enablement, it would never survive inside the country. what do you mean? i mean they have bases, training facilities, they recruit outside of the country, they have madrasses outside of the country, their leadership lives in safety outside of afghanistan. where outside of afghanistan? well, i mean, in many places, but you mentioned pakistan. and so, again, this is — this has been stated clearly by president trump in his august speech. so crucially, president trump cut

military support for pakistan, and said "if you continue this policy, then we will continue the pressure against you". as the commander of forces here, are you beginning to see a difference? is that beginning to change? i think the biggest difference is now we have a public conversation about peace. so i think while it may be hard to draw direct linkage between the statements by president trump and the taliban willingness to talk about peace, i believe there is a link. so this is a — the pressure for 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 there are still — the enemies we are fighting we believe 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 in waziristan, zarb—e—azb, and other operations, and operations along the border,

they are attempting to interdict these terrorists and stop the flow back and forth. now, the other external actor talked about a little bit less is russia. we are told by senior police officers, by senior military figures within afghanistan that russia is providing weapons and other resources for the taliban. we share some interest with russia and afghanistan and clearly, they are acting to undermine our interest as well. and we are here, in our — especially in our us role — to go after those terrorists who could potentially pose a threat to any country around the world. so there is a counterterrorism objective that we share, there's a counter—narcotics objective that we share, there is an interest in peace and reconciliation. so we would hope that the russians would see this opportunity to work in support of common interests as a way forward. however, that has not been the case. so, what has been happening? well, what we have seen is destabilising activity by the russians. we see a narrative that's being used that grossly exaggerates the number of isis fighters here.

this narrative then is used as a justification for the russians to legitimise the actions of the taliban and provide some degree of support to the taliban. what support do you understand...? well, the support, frankly, it's difficult to quantify. i mean, but it does amount — we've 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 that the russians are involved, again, i mentioned the misinformation campaign which will be familiar to anyone who has observed the russian behaviour elsewhere around the world. we also see a series of exercises being conducted on the border with afghanistan. this is in tajikistan. yes. and so, these are counterterrorism exercises but as we have seen the russian pattern before, they bring in large amounts of equipment, then they leave some of it behind. the point is the russians use 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 kind of in parallel with the war in syria of interest. so you think this is, in a way, a kind of proxy war that they are keeping pressure on america through the activities of the taliban in afghanistan? this activity really picked up in the last 18—24 months. and so, 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. so 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 that raises to fund their operations. now, narcotics is a hugely important issue here because of course this is a key revenue source for the taliban. as the taliban raise money, they become effectively a kind of cartel — it's what you saw very similar kind of behaviour in colombia. and the danger is that that creates momentum for this insurgency to continue. are you worried about the role of narcotics, of opium, in this conflict? absolutely, justin. i mean, the dynamic you outlined is exactly what we are concerned about. that, despite their original religious roots, that this organisation is morphing into a narco insurgency that now is a moneymaking enterprise and is making lots of money in areas, so there is an interest in maintaining instability, there's an interest in keeping the government out in order to profit from the drugs trade. and then 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 the purpose of profit than it is about their original religious and political leanings. 0k, and so how has that changed your tactics? yeah, what it does is we have to go after the sources of taliban revenue, so 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 the number one source, as you pointed out. so we are now actively going after those sources. now, 90% of the opium in this country and the heroin is produced in the areas that are under taliban influence or control, or contested. so we see a clear convergence between the criminal behaviour and the areas of the insurgency. and you don't see that in the areas under government control, which is about two thirds. talking of the subject of the areas of control, figures produced by an organisation

called sigar, and american agency, suggest the taliban is expanding its area of influence — or at least, it did last year. now, does that — this must be dispiriting as the commander of forces to see the taliban effectively advancing. yeah, those numbers came from us and we disagree, the way... the way they interpreted the figures? yes, the way they were interpreted. number one, we look at population control and the government controls 64—65% of the population. the figure they have chosen to use instead of population control is the figure of actual space on the ground. area. area on the ground. so, the... are you saying that is not a legitimate way to describe the, you know, the territory controlled by the taliban? we think that the population is much more relevant than the empty desert, for example. but regardless, the offensive capability of the afghans is going to expand that control to drive the enemy to more remote areas of the country, even more remote than they already are, in order to eventually force them to either reconcile

or 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 the 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, then 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. so this is a 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.

their 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 all of 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 outreach 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 months 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... now, 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. hello, many of us kicking off

british summertime with some sunshine. away from the south and sunshine. away fremihe—sg—itw sunshins; awsy framihs—ssstw 755? was sunshins; awsy framihs—ssstw g cloud | was 13mm sunshins; awsy framihs—ssstw g cloud a vgs 13mm sunshins; awsy framihs—ssstw g cloud a little 3; sunshins; awsy framihs—ssstw s}; cloud a little enh to the cloud a little iiidteslubhntri‘hl w . ,. ,. the cloud a little mutestubbmn‘m w . ,. ,. 2 the south—east the cloud a little motestubbmn‘m w . ,. ,. 2 the south—east of clear across the south—east of england, where it lingered through the afternoon. but the temperatures in the double figures feeling fairly springlike and most of us. this week a return to something a bit colder, u nsettled a return to something a bit colder, unsettled as we see weather systems moving in the atlantic. that milder airto begin the moving in the atlantic. that milder air to begin the week will be replaced by something called, a low pressure system moving in from the west, dragging in this cold airfrom the east, turning particularly cold to the north—east of the british isles. we start of the day on a bit ofa isles. we start of the day on a bit of a frosty note tomorrow but it will be a bright one for many, plenty of sunshine around, perhaps a few patches of mist and fog but they should lift quickly, turning cloudy from the west with spells of rain moving from northern ireland, and then later into wales and south—west england. temperatures maximum 13

degrees, the odd chance of an isolated shower in the south—east of england. as we move into tuesday, an area of low pressure agent in from the west, so a spell of rain overnight and then some spells a brain particularly in the north on tuesday, which could fall as snow over the hills in scotland. the best of any brightness —— rain. temperatures not doing too bad. maximum 13. that same weather front with us through wednesday. it starts to pivot slightly, though, so we will see more in the way of rain. this wave in the south—west will also throw up some rain to begin the day in england and wales, so will be a wet day. some of the rain falling snow over ground, brightening up though with the best of any brightness in the south—west, scattered showers in northern ireland, northern england, some could be wintry and heavy, the 0rd rumble of thunder and some hail, and some snow for a time over the hills again in scotland. temperatures colder in the north, the next area

of low pressure brings another weather front of the south—west, as weather front of the south—west, as we move into thursday. we will see some more prolonged snow in the north, though, so we could see snow even to lower levels for parts of murray and aberdeenshire through thursday. then showers thrown up from the south—west across england and wales, some could be heavy, the 0rd rumble of thunder not out of the question. temperatures in the double figures in the south, 11 celsius but still colder in the north and east. then we move into friday, still that area low—pressure, it will gradually shift further north so again we are looking at some spells of rain as we move into friday. that rain could be wintry over high ground in the north of england and a few showers moving in from the south—west, which could be happy for southern parts of england, the 0rd rumble of thunder, some hail mixed in, still the risk of one or two snow showers and parts of one or two snow showers and parts of scotland, temperatures between four and 11 celsius. that takes us

into the easter weekend and again low pressure is going to dominate. it will be fairly unsettled. there will be spells of rain, a little bit of uncertainty as to the exact positioning of the low—pressure systems, so as we move into the weekend there will be some uncertainty, but we can say it will be chilly at times, and we will see some spells a brain, which could fall as snow, particularly over the hills and all. there will be some drier interludes as well so not a total wash—out. stay tuned to the forecast and we will you up—to—date. —— keep you up—to—date. australian cricket in crisis as the ball tampering scandal sends shockwaves through the world of sport. the captain, steve smith, is banned from the next test in south africa after it emerges that the leadership team knew about a plan to tamper with the ball. one player was caught on camera, sparking an uproar that's now seen the australian prime minister speak out. it seemed completely beyond belief that the australian cricket team had

been involved in cheating. that the australian cricket team had after all, our cricketers are role models.