good morning, you are watching bbc news. the headlines... the prince of wales�* former aide steps down temporarily from his charity role after allegations he used his influence to help secure an honourfor a major donor. taliban officials have broken up a demonstration by dozens of women in kabul, who were calling for the right to work and to be included in the government heathrow airport has criticised uk border force after passengers complained of "unacceptable queuing times" , images on social media showed packed queues at the london airport. reports that ministers in the uk are to announce the demolition of grenfell tower due to safety concerns — one survivors group says fewer than ten of them were consulted. now on bbc news, political thinking. nick robinson talks about what's

really going on in british politics. a national tragedy, shameful, a staggering failure. britain's biggest foreign policy disaster since suez. that is how my guest has described our withdrawal from afghanistan. he is tom tugendhat — former soldier and former to the commander of the helmand province, former adviser to the chief of defence staff. he is now chair of a foreign affairs committee of the house of commons and this is the series in which i have conversations with, not interrogations of, those who shape our political thinking about what shapes theirs. their background, their values, their lives beyond politics. it was precisely that which led mps

to listen to tom tugendhat in total silence as he spoke in the commons of his struggle with anger, grief and rage as he watched events unfold in kabul. i've been to funerals from poole to dunblane, i've watched good men go into the earth, taking with them a part of me and a part of all of us. and this week has torn open some of those wounds, left them raw and left us all hurting. tom tugendhat, welcome to political thinking. hi, nick. nice to see you. have you had much sleep since those events in kabul? no, i haven't. i have got one of those trackers on my phone and i have noticed my sleep has gone from an average of seven and a half hours to three or four hours on average for the last three weeks and it feels a bit like being back on ops, actually. there is a network of retired

officers and soldiers trying to help those we know who are in such desperate need and so it has been pretty full on. you must be getting texts and e—mails, messages saying, "get me out. help!" yes. i got a phone call at 2am this morning from a group of individuals who are stuck on a border and these are not people i know but somehow they got my number and said, "get me out. "open the border." and i had to explain to them i can't. i can't order the border guards to do that. i don't have that authority, i can't order the embassy or high commission to give them papers. the home office has a say. the security services have a say, the foreign secretary has a say. all these decisions i can push, but i can'tjust give an order.

and, you know, it's... i mean, as the old line goes, i used to say, go and they went and then i said, come and they came. but now all i do is i shout like a voice in the wilderness. that is the big difference about being a soldier and now being a politician and a backbench politician who can't force anything to happen. do you feel a sort of personal responsibility? that you owe these people? yes. deeply personal. you know, these are people i fought with. these are people who risked everything alongside me and others and even those i don't know, i know who they fought with. i know them. these aren't foreigners. these are... you know. these are much more. and is that why you talked so movingly? it was clear you were moved,

let alone people watching you in the house of commons and listening to you about shame and anger and grief. yes. imean... it's funny, i have spoken to a lot of veterans recently, for obvious reasons, and a lot of people after i made that speech have got in touch. quite literally thousands — from the united states, the uk and other countries. and the feeling of shame is pretty universal. it's... it's really striking to me how... for me, it was almost therapeutic. "you're not alone." you say these things in the wilderness and you have no idea whether or not they are going to find echoes, and what struck me is how many of us feel the same. serving officers, retired officers, serving soldiers, retired soldiers, british, american, french, you name it. you talked of watching good men go into the earth,

taking with them "a part of me, a part of all of us." and it could have been you — the taliban tried more than once to kill you. yeah, they did. it could have been. it wasn't. and indeed, people around you were killed when the taliban tried to assassinate you. yes. i lost... i lost a few people. i want to ask you a difficult question. are you too close? does all this mean that you speak with passion, you speak with authority, we should listen, but some would say, he is too close to this, it is too personal? it's as a fair question. i can understand that question. but i am too close to the nhs because i rely on it? absolutely. for the protection of my family. am i too close to the welfare policies in the united kingdom because i rely on it? completely. for the protection that my family, my friends might rely on, those people i served

with often do rely on, many people i know rely on. am i too close to the transport policies that we vote for because i and many other people rely on notjust the train to run on time, but also the change from, you know, petrol to green energy of whatever it is? i mean, you know, the nature of democratic politics, if you have a democracy, is that you have got people who are, by definition, close to this. and if you don't, what you're actually voting for is an aristocracy — people who are remote, who are separate. i accept what you are saying and i constantly need to ask myself, and i constantly do ask myself, am i wrong? have i over invested? am i throwing good money after bad? i am intrigued by you saying that you have had to ask yourself, even on so little sleep, even in the heat of things, whether you got it wrong.

is there a possibility that the argument that was made for many years by many people that afghanistan could never be quelled, it could never be governed safely and securely, that they were always right for 20 years? i don't buy that, and the history of afghanistan suggests that isn't so. there were long periods when afghanistan was governed peacefully, under the late king, zahir shah, and his father. many people, i don't know whether you did it, did the hippy trail. no. that will not come as a huge revelation to people. i don't suppose they had manchester united fan shops in afghanistan. they probably do now. you know, it was a well governed, peaceful place, you know, women and girls went to school and university. there were civil servants and so on. you know, it was a pretty

uninteresting and relatively prosperous town — country. the main argument it seems thatjoe biden is making us president is, look, the status quo was not really an option. the idea that you have promoted, the idea that tony blair has promoted, which is, why notjust carry on with a couple of thousand troops? "almost no casualties for several years, just keep going," was unrealistic, because the taliban would have seen that as a declaration of war, after the 20th anniversary of 9/11, given that donald trump had made a deal to get out, given thatjoe biden was known as a politician who promised the american people he would get out. so there was only one option — to get out or to reinforce possibly and send in more troops. i don't buy that. i do buy, of course, that this was very well signposted in advance, as you rightly say. notjust biden but also trump and actually also obama, who set the deadline or the first departure date when he did the surge way back when. so you are right.

this was very clearly signposted, but that does not mean it is right. if you look at the troop numbers, you say it is a serious troop commitment, look, you know, one soldier in a country can be a serious troop commitment depending on what they're doing. in this case, it was 2500 us troops. that is about half the crew of a us aircraft carrier. imean... but the biden point, surely, and you've spoken to lots people in washington dc to try to get your mind around what is in his mind, the biden argument seems to be is it was not going to stay at 2500. if he had said, we are staying, the taliban would have said, that's fine. we're going to attack your troops and we will attack british troops and you will then be forced to send many more people in. that is assuming that british troops and american troops were doing the kind of operations that would allow that to happen. that's simply not so. the afghan armed forces, whether they be police or ana,

afghan national army, were the ones conducting the operations. what we were doing was we were doing the enablement. so, you know, supporting the air movements, supporting air strikes and logistics. and all that was being done, basically, by two relatively isolated bases in kandahar and bagram, with a huge amount of stand—off and with thousands of contractors who would only stay if the us stayed. so, you know, that is not... that is not a valid argument. the other idea you have made and others have made, which biden took on specifically when he spoke to the nation a few days ago, is the idea that this is like korea, like germany after world war ii. the idea that we could stay for decades and with far higher troop numbers that we have in afghanistan.

they're saying, no, they were no longer hot. they were over. really? you say that south korea in the early 70s was no longer a hot war? i think there are plenty people who would disagree, looking at what was going on across the other side and really wonder whether that was so and you would have looked at the south korean government at that time and you would have said, this is a basket case. it is run by a bunch of military dictators, its economy is below that of afghanistan, roughly equivalent to congo. will it ever rise again? will that ever prosper? now look at it. it is one of the world's great economies, one of the world's great democracies. and it's exporting notjust, you know, cars, and notjust the industrial world but actually culture, innovation, science. it is an extraordinary success story, south korea. there will be people watching and listening saying, you could say that about dozens of countries. of course you could. we don't invade there. we don't occupy there. we don't keep our troops in harm's way there. why afghanistan? because that is where 9/11 happened. you don't choose history. history chooses you. more people were killed from these

islands in that single incident than any other terrorist incident. you know, this was a moment when globalisation came to bite us and it came from there and we had a choice. we didn't have to react but we did. as nato, it's the only time we have done the all for one and one for all — the article five pledge. and we stood together and we did it. and so, you know, you're right, we did not have to do it but we were there and we were not anywhere else. you now have to deal with the fact that president biden, a democrat, although he argued against this, has got his way, and the republicans largely agree with him even though they criticised the way he has done it. what does this mean with our relationship with the united states? you described america

as a lion which wants to sleep quietly in its bed. what did you mean? imean... i mean, america is one of the most extraordinary achievements of humanity. it has managed to harness, through ideals, ideas and innovations and cultures and people from around the world into an extraordinary republic. and that has given it strength beyond anybody�*s imagining in cultural, military, economic terms. it is an extraordinary place. but... but, as you rightly say, as the the song goes, "from sea to shining sea," it has the extraordinary luxury of having two great oceans on either side and two neighbours who are, broadly speaking, extremely friendly. that is a luxury that allows some people to have the illusion that they can sleep quietly in their beds without thinking about others.

but does this mean that we have to relook at the whole of our foreign policy based on that close relationship with the united states pretty much since world war ii and churchill? it does mean we have to look again but i don't think we should delude ourselves, you know, and be defeatist into american isolationism. it is not isolationism, but it is certainly a moment where america, as you rightly say, under the last three presidents, and actually, had it not been for 9/11, probably the last four presidents, would have had a roughly similar trajectory of gradual withdrawal from the world. the fashion now, conventional wisdom is that the politicians have messed it up, partly because there is such sympathy and such empathy with soldiers and former soldiers like yourself, people are not critical of the military. is it not reasonable to say that actually, the british military lost? they lost in helmand, in southern iraq. they did not succeed in libya, they did not succeed in syria. in fact, there has not a real

british military success for an awfully long time? imean... i'm not going to tell you there were no military mistakes. there were plenty. and i can start... ..start at the top and work down, if you like. i've got to be honest, i'm guilty of plenty of mistakes myself, which, you know, i have to live with. military mistakes, you mean? decisions that i took that were wrong, and mistakes have consequences. 0nes you live with, you revisit? 0nes i live with. i'm not one to sort of dwell on the past but, yeah, i'm conscious of my errors. there are some people who say, look, it should have been obvious then. it was potentially obvious before then that there was only a political solution here. effectively, a deal would have to be done with the taliban. you say that. i keep hearing this line — there is no military solution. the taliban have just proven it! what do you think the

taliban havejust done? a military solution. they invaded kabul. it is done. that is the military solution. what you are not willing to say is that there was another military solution, which was to support a very, very slow peace—building operation. what they are going to do is they are going to do the reverse of what we did. they are going to say, "we are going to stay armed as long "as it takes to build an islamic emirate. "and we will use force, and we will use violence to make "sure that you comply until it is so second nature, "we don't need to any more." "as long as it takes" is interesting, because in your speech in the house of commons, you talked again and again about patience. is that in the round? is that what you think is missing in western democracy? a willingness to do this for 10, 20, 30, a0 more years? this is the south korea point, the germany point, the cypress point. we have had troops on the ground

in cyprus since the �*60s keeping that green line, that un operation, those two warring parties apart and peaceful. you know, is that a forever war? no, it's not. it is a forever peace. but peace takes investment, it takes time, the same way as... you know, you would not have described having policemen on the streets as forever riot. you would call it policing. you would call it keeping the peace and that's what it is and our troops weren't even doing that. they were supporting others. this was the first test of a phrase which you, on the select committee, raised the odd eyebrow at. "global britain." how's it looking now? i don't object to the phrase, ijust don't know what it means. there is nothing wrong with the phrase. fine. but... but what is behind it? what do you fear it means? well, i don't fear it means anything.

ijust don't know what it means. you think it's vaccuous? it could be. the first attempt at it, explaining it, is the integration review, which is a very good document. it brings together many things — military and security policy. and it mentions the educational women and girls as a priority. it mentions afghanistan twice, and the single biggest reversal in the ability to educate women and girls of the fall of afghanistan. global britain is not quite working. what about the foreign office as an institution? your frustration is evident in everything you have said since the fall of kabul. what is going wrong with the foreign office? that's a really big question, because it is quite clear that, you know, you lift up the bonnet of the rolls—royce and i'm not quite sure what the engine is but it wasn't made in coventry. to use your analogy, they may be wearing red shirts but they're not your team.

they're not manchetser united any more. are the even in the premier league, the performance of the foreign office? i can list high commissioners and ambassadors and, extraordinarily capable diplomats, who are genuinely world—class and fantastic, but when you see secure documents of other personal information left in the embassy in kabul, when you see the senior civil servant remain on holiday at a moment of extraordinary foreign policy crisis, you wonder, what matters to you? what is it that drives you? the foreign secretary? 0n holiday as well. yes, but i mean, if you will forgive me, most politicians haven't dedicated 30 years

of their lives to a single institution so what is more shocking is the pus. in other words, the senior official. can you imagine...? can you imagine in a battle the general not coming back? i mean, it is unthinkable. it is completely unthinkable. in fact, voltaire made a joke about it. i don't know if you remember. remind me. he made the joke about admiral byng in 1760, wasn't it? who didn't show enough guts when fighting the french and i think he was hanged at a port and the joke voltaire said was, "pour encourager les autre" — "to encourage the others." if that applies to the top civil servant in the foreign office, then it surely applies to the foreign secretary as well.

we were all on holiday in august and when this happened — that was it. i was doing 20—hour days. there is a sense that this is personal between you and dominic raab. it was heard, there was applause at the end of your speech and when he wound up the debate, it is traditional for ministers to praise. not a word. i apologised and i was not going to be there for the wind ups, so he knew i was not going to be there. i don't think it is personal. as you know, i've given a pretty hard time to three foreign secretaries now. i hope i am respectful of the office and the individuals. i have to say, i think dominic raab is a highly intelligent man who has demonstrated some very good judgment in some areas and, you know,

in other areas, it is my job to challenge him. and if there were not that challenge function, that wouldn't be good for democracy. you mentioned you challenge previous foreign secretaries, not least boris johnson, with whom you've clashed repeatedly. you once said something very interesting, which is humour does not translate in foreign policy. trust me, i've tried it. it doesn't. do mean literally? the words are not there? because you were a speaker of how many languages? six or seven. it just doesn't. trust me on this one. a boris gag, let's be honest, that often gets a smile from people who don't like him as well as people who do may work in that way to reduce tension at home but not abroad? boris has a remarkable ability to communicate in the united kingdom. it is really quite phenomenal. in a way, he is a political alchemist and he has a fantastic ability to get a message across, to carry an image that sticks

with people and gets people to buy into it, but the reality is, languages work differently, cultures work differently and it is really hard to translate a joke. you speak half a dozen languages, �*re a former soldier who has spent a lot of time abroad, and i think there will be some people listening thinking, why is he not in the government? politics are personal. you need to get on with the people who are around you. we get on perfectly well when we see each other. we have actually been texting each other and working quite closely over the crisis and i have to say, i'm not going to say that i think everything has gone brilliantly. you know i don't think that. but i have to say, i think there are some really impressive moments of response and decision making by the government that have resulted in a significantly better outcome than might have been the case, you know, many of us feared a few weeks ago.

so i'm not universally critical. i'm critical on the areas where i am, you know, charged by parliament to run the challenge function. that's what i'm doing. just for a second you looked as if you were going to say borisjohnson did a good and you can bring yourself to do it. the thing... you think he has messed it up, don't you? he has done a good job in some areas. the thing is, the problem i've got with those questions in this role that i have got now is i am conservative and i believe in conservative values and a champion them as best as i can. but myjob is not to be a cheerleader for the government because otherwise it compromises my ability to work across party in the job i have as a chairman. final question. the fear i imagine you have is that

people will be weary about talking about afghanistan and just think it is over. do you have real hope that you can keep the attention of people in the government and the civil service and the people you still want to help? the reality is, afghanistan is over and we were defeated politically. but we were defeated because we chose to walk away. so it is over. we are now into a second phase which is, how to as best we can protect

the most vulnerable from attacks because of them standing by in our hour of need. i don't think this government is weary of that, actually. this is something i'm very proud of this government for. it turned around immediately and, you know, 20,000 is the right number 30,000 is a right number but it did not argue with the principle was right. it neversaid, no, no, we don't want foreigners. it immediately said we have got a responsibility and british people demonstrated pretty clearly, certainly for me, a level desire to support afghans who are in need so i don't think it is going to be wearied of it in that sense, but i do think, i am afraid, it is over. chair of the foreign affairs committee of the house of commons, thank you forjoining me on political thinking. thanks, nick.

a suspicion not even his family, his friends have him are he's a cheerleader waiting to hear whether he has got herjob and boris johnson's government. of course, that perhaps makes him even more powerful when he criticises them. he's got nothing that he wants from them and very little that he fears. thanks for watching. sunny spells watering and the world, but staying misty and murky fossil coasts of kevin and —— devon and cornwall. further north, 20 degrees in glasgow. through this evening and night, this band of rain sinks southward across scotland and northern ireland, into parts of northern england, mist and anwarfor wales and the north west, —— mist and fog enough files. turning warmer on monday and tuesday, but the end of the week more unsettled and

temperatures dip a little.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. the head of one of prince charles�* charities temporarily steps down following claims he helped secure an honourfor a major donor taliban officials have broken up a demonstration by dozens of women in kabul, who were calling for the right to work and to be included in the government. heathrow airport has criticised uk border force after passengers complained of "unacceptable queuing times" , images on social media showed packed queues at the london airport. the uk government have said no decision has been taken after reports of the demolition of grenfell tower due to safety concerns , one survivors group claimed fewer than 10 of them were consulted. and two more medals for great britain on the final

day of the paralympics, with bronze wins in the men's