22/08/2017 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines. With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/08/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win.


Fighting talk from President Trump over Afghanistan.


But harsh words too for Pakistan, formally a US ally,


for harbouring the Taliban and other terrorists.


What does the Afghanistan announcement tell us about who holds


We speak to the mercenary boss who had hoped for


What does he make of the President's plan?


More than 600 people are receiving NHS counselling


We'll hear of the slow painful process towards


My children did not know what fear was. She knows what fear is now. My


child is priceless and their children are priceless. The


government said HS three will happen.


We'll ask the shadow chief secretary to the treasury


if there's cross-party consensus for the scheme.


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


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 Obama's so-called surge in


2009. The secretary of defence has described the Taliban itself as


searching. This map shows the extent of their fightback 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. What he did add a new element which is rather explicit


threat to engage India more heavily in Afghanistan. That will get


Islamabad's attention. Figures suggest there have been 428 US drone


strikes since 2004. At the peak there 128. 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 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 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. 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 Obama'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 our foreign, military assistance,


provide them no access to platforms like F-16s that allow it to continue


aggression towards India. We should be willing to provide platforms.


Providing them with F-16s 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 civilians, intelligence operatives, with whom we have


reliable information. We are in complete agreement that the way


forward is not just 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. They used 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. 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. If 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.


They 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 be unacceptable 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 his credit, he laid


out wide the Americans need to continue caring about Afghanistan.


If there is continued leadership in explaining that Afghanistan and


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 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 Today his website was


suitably critical of on the subject is Erik Prince -


the founder and former boss Until recently Mr Prince had hoped


the president might agree to a plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan


and leave securing peace 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 Prince joins me


now from Washington. Good evening to you. You have an


history of running mercenary operations. 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. 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


business 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 to their views. 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 and a 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 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. So you do not think he will stick with this plan for


long, due think there is still hope for your plan? What I layout is


basic soldiering. It is how the East India company operated. 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 military Justice, it is a much cheaper and


much smaller footprint way and proven to be effective over the


centuries. To stand on its own against these terrorist


organisations resident in Afghanistan. Thank you for joining


us. It's little more than two months


since the Grenfell disaster, and for many involved,


residents, others in 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. Only yesterday the head of


the London Fire Brigade Dany Cotton 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 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. 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 nowhere else


to go but look at it. Theresa Griffin has lived


beside Grenfell Tower 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. Yes, that tree wasn't there,


there wasn't so much, In this close-knit community it


isn't just survivors of the fire Local residents like Theresa


watched, powerless to I could see, there was two people


there that stood out for me. There was a friend


of mine, Tony Disson. And he was talking to


people out the window. And there was a woman over


in the corner and she just shouted She didn't care about herself,


she just wanted her 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. I didn't have to do


that when she was six. And this fear that she has


of losing, you know, And a child shouldn't


feel guilt like that. 14 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. 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, 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 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 NHS mental health outreach workers


have knocked on 2200 This is the UK's largest ever


mental health response So far 600 people have been referred


for further treatment This woman's flat


faces Grenfell Tower. 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. 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 You know, we have seen


a range of emotions. If I had one wish it would be


that people would be 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 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 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. The fact that eventually


when I did get out, how lucky And I know quite a few people that


have obviously lost their lives, people who were very,


very close, I would see them 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 mental health sort


of nurse at least once or twice. But she calls me up


on a day-to-day basis to check up 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, After Grenfell he doesn't trust


the housing association's fire Even in this building here I have


asked quite a few times what is the fire procedure


for the building, for this sort 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 It's a little over two


months since the fire. A very short time for a community


to come to terms with All our community wants


to do is get the answers It's not dwindling onto


it or wanting to hold I just 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 I just feel a little


bit better at the end They haven't got


their kids any more. And if you or anyone


you know are affected by any of the issues raised in her film


then there is a dedicated Grenfell So how long does it take to recover


from something like this? 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 He is currently chair


of the Emergency Planning Society, which advises government


on disasters such as Grenfell, 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? 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, he went to the carriages, 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 virtue long. -- 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 lot of other disasters. Normally we remove the


wreckage. With Grenfell it will be there 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? You have people about you. Does that reinforce it? What is


the difference in approach? 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. 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.


You will never forget the people who lost their lives. Slowly, slowly, it


may be help from friends. 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. 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


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 decentralisation. For too


long we've had a need to chill out. You're giving no help to a lot of


the smaller communities. They want help for retraining. That is much


more valuable. 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


this 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. 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 - 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 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 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 the children. The idea. 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 don't think they need to know how to


contour. They don't need to know 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 but the idea of wanting to emulate something is


totally ingrained. But the idea that unless you do this it 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 to know how pretty


they could be! It is up to the parents. 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. We are looking at


worrying about how people perceive us. To concern ourselves, it is


absolutely wrong. Essentially, if somebody wants to spend an hour and


a half in front of the mirror, it doesn't mean they are stupid, it


just means that aspect of their life is important to them. Absolutely


not. The idea that we have this 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. Men have a similar pressure. It is worse for women because they


have pressured to look a certain way. But the idea that looking a


certain way is just 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


is motivation. For somebody who enjoys make up, that is as much


pleasure as painting canvas. 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. Women are judged much more harshly. Thank you


so much. That is it for tonight. Before we go, we've been


marking Proms season Tonight we have trumpeter


Christian Scott, with his take on the track Celia by jazz legend


Charles Mingus. Good evening. A weather front will


bring heavy rain through the night across Scotland and still be


lingering first thing tomorrow


Download Subtitles