Globe columnist Christie Blatchford, who has spent the past several weeks covering the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan, was on-line earlier today from Kandahar to take your questions. Her reporting from the scene has ranged from tragedies such as the first Canadian combat death in Afghanistan to the hopeful The indomitable Afghan spirit She also described the reality of life - and war - for our troops in her two-part series The Belly Button and Into the forbidding Afghan hills .
You can read the rest of Christie's reports from Afghanistan, along with other Globe stories, editorials and comment on our special report on Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
The questions and answers are at the bottom of this page.
Christie started at The Globe in 1972 while still at Ryerson and worked here for six years, four as sports columnist, before joining The Toronto Star for four years as a general assignment reporter. She spent 15 years at the Toronto Sun, first as a humor columnist and then as the paper's main news pages columnist. She covered the first Gulf War for The Sun. Christie joined The National Post for five years, dating from its birth, and then came back to The Globe where her primary beat now is the criminal courts. She's also a general assignment columnist who still dabbles in sports (at the Turin Olympics recently) and in politics (during the recent federal election).
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Please note that due to the technical difficulties of communicating with Christie in Afghanistan, preference was given in this one case - as we advised our readers - to questions submitted in advance.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Christie, thanks very much for joining us today from Kandahar to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com I know you're extra busy today because of some late-breaking news which you've already reported for our Web site 'Friendly fire' may have killed Canadian soldier So let's get started. As an experienced journalist and war correspondent, you must have had certain expectations when you started this assignment. How many of them came true and, equally important, what surprised you most on the ground in Afghanistan.
Christie Blatchford: I'm not really all that experienced a war correspondent, Jim, except for being in Tel Aviv in the first Gulf War, which was scary as hell (we didn't know which kind of Scuds would fall, regular or poisoned, so you always had a choice of two shelters to go to . . . talk about a rock and a hard place). For the rest of it, I was in Qatar, where the Canucks were based, and that was interesting but pretty damn safe. Aside from that, and the first summer of the war in the former Yugoslavia, that's pretty much it . . . lots of folks who really know this stuff.
I didn't realize, before I got here, how much I would like the country, or how stricken I'd be by the poverty and miserable lot that is the ordinary Afghan's life . . . I haven't spend much time in developing world countries . . . very tough seeing all these beautiful kids, begging on the streets . . . they're so damn smart, and resilient, but what lousy luck, you know.
The other thing that surprised me is how scary it is to be driving around, always expecting some sort of attack - different from the kind of scary that Sarajevo was. There, you knew to fear snipers in the buildings. Here, if you let it, you could be afraid of everyone.
Jim Smerdon, Vancouver: Hello Ms. Blatchford. Thank you for taking my question and for your amazing work in Afghanistan. Have you spoken to Afghans? Do they want us there?
Christie Blatchford: Yes I have, Jim. And yup, I think they do, if only because they've had so much war, and so much destruction, they long for some sort of security and peace. There's still a lot of tribalism about - this is a largely illiterate and uneducated place - but thus far, those I've met, from the many people we interviewed in Kabul to the bright young men working as interpreters for the coalition here, I think we are wanted.
Joyce Lafontaine, North Bay, Ont.: Christie, Thank you for the stories, for sharing your feelings and compassion. As a mother of one of the soldiers that was with you on the "hike" in the mountains, it made me feel like you were an extension of family there with him. I saw through your eyes and felt through your heart. Thank you for helping us feel closer to our son, and for helping us to better understand his situation. Our prayers continue for the troops over there, and now for the journalists as well. God bless!
Editor's Note: Ms. Lafontaine is referring to these two stories by Christie: The Belly Button and Into the forbidding Afghan hills
Christie Blatchford: Thanks very much, Joyce . . . I'm grateful that you liked the story . . . it's tough writing about what these kids, and they are kids to me (both Rosie DiManno of The Star and I feel very maternal about them), knowing that moms and dads back home may be reading . . . hard line to walk, because it's a tough job here they've got, filled with risk, and yet they're so damn steadfast in their resolve. I've found our soldiers so thoughtful, so well-read . . . you must be very proud of your boy.
Guy Warwick, Ottawa: Christie, what are the three most significant things that you have learned as part of your trip to Afghanistan that you think Canadians ought to know?
Christie Blatchford: . . . that our soldiers are in general smart, well-educated and thoughtful . . . that they, if not us, have thought this mission through, and believe in it . . . and that we ought to have more faith in them than I think we do.
David Stevenson, Ottawa: Ms. Blatchford, I have been following your stories in The Globe and have enjoyed them very much. My question deals with the realities of being what the U.S. calls "embedded" with the troops. Is it not possible that journalistic objectivity suffers when the reporter is living with the troops and sharing the same dangers they face? I think it was quite evident that some U.S. reporters suffered from this during the invasion of Iraq. As time went on, they went from being objective reporters to being cheerleaders for the invasion . . . Do you feel that your objectivity has been impaired by your being embedded with the Canadian troops in Afghanistan?
Christie Blatchford: Don't much believe in objectivity anyway, nor do I think it is necessarily a worthy goal. Fairness is much more attainable, and in my view a more reasonable standard. In most of what I've written, I've made it clear that I'm embedded, so the reader knows, and I've not pulled my punches, I don't think.
The truth is, it's a marvellous idea, because you do get to see what the soldiers do (I had no clue, for instance, how bloody hard it is to be an infantryman until I marched with them) and from the military's point of view, it's smart, because it's human nature, I think, to like most people, especially if they're protective of you.
Bob Tower, Victoria, B.C.: Our son is serving in Afghanistan so maybe I am a bit biased. However my question is: The Russians could not win a war in that country, so what makes (Canadian) politicians think that NATO will have better results?
Christie Blatchford: Because it's not a war, not now anyway. Post the U.S. invasion, it was pretty clear that the country needed a lot of help, rebuilding, and that the Afghan government, duly elected, wanted it. I don't think any nation, frankly, could beat these people if they decided they didn't want them here . . . that the coalition is succeeding, bit by bit, suggests I think that we are wanted here.
David Beattie, Chelsea, Que.: Ms. Blatchford, the political and religious instability in this area has gone on for decades at least, maybe hundreds of years . . . Given its history and current challenges - invasion after invasion, dictatorship after dictatorship, drug wars, religious wars, warlords, and on and on - do you harbour a realistic hope that Afghanistan can ever stitch together a functioning and stable state, let alone a Western-style free democracy? What is a compassionate world's desired outcome here? What do we need to do to achieve it? And for how many decades will our help be needed?
Christie Blatchford: I think the desired outcome is that security comes to this country, that it is within a reasonably short time delivered by Afghans, and that they have time to catch their collective breath and give a new generation the chance to go to school without fear, and walk about their streets without fear . . . I think the rest will naturally follow, not our style of democracy necessarily, but change for the better.
W. Kurz, Kelowna, B.C.: Thanks for your insightful reports, Christie. I have 3 questions: First, how are we going to measure success or failure of our mission in Afghanistan? Second, in your opinion, will our mission over there succeed or fail? Third, how long do you think this mission is going to last? Thanks for your answers.
Christie Blatchford: Sheesh, that's a handful of questions . . . bearing in mind I'm no expert, to No. 1, I'd say that's the toughest, but so long as we are made to, by and large, feel welcome here, as is the case now, I think we're succeeding . . . I've encountered no resentment of our soldiers or civic-type officials from ordinary people. To No. 2, I'd say I don't know. I think it's a very dodgy situation, very fluid, and hard to rate. But I'd add that if we fail, it will not be for lack of honest trying. No. 3: I think if the political will is there, we might be here for five years, maybe longer . . .
Barbara J. Stewart, Vancouver: Hi, Christie. One of the "selling points" for the coalition's involvement in Afghanistan was the commitment to expand democratic rights for women. Yet it seems that the promise may be fading - betrayed in negotiations with old-guard tribal and religious leaders. Are Afghani women better off today than they were? What systemic advances, if any, have they made in their country? Thanks for your insight. Stay safe.
Christie Blatchford: Well, they were able to have an International Women's Day celebration, which my CTV colleagues attended . . . I have personally interviewed young girls who are in school, and in mixed classes. No doubt there's a long way to go, but there are many women in some parts of the country now wearing just a colourful head scarf, not a full burka . . . baby steps, I think, but they'd feel big if you'd spent five years covered head-to-toe.
Shelly Gornall, North Vancouver and Geneva: Christie, how does the situation in Kandahar compare to that in Kabul? I'm wondering about differences in culture and security, and particularly attitudes towards the Canadian military.
Christie Blatchford: Kabul feels much safer, though there was a suicide bombing while we were there. However, the city is generally secure, and as a western woman, I felt fine wearing just a head scarf. There are lots of local women without the burka there. But Kandahar City is a different kettle of fish . . . almost all the women are covered head-to-toe. They sort of scuttle about (though they will smile and wave if you do it first), and the IED threat and the ambush threat are both much, much greater. Kandahar City is scary and less friendly . . . the adults anyway. Kids in both places are fabulous, and almost all wave or give the thumbs-up at the sight of soldiers. In Kandahar City the other day, when one of the vehicles in my convoy broke down, the kids were calling me granny . . . alas.
Jakob Tanner, Toronto: I've read that Afghanistan is now Europe's main supplier of heroin. Are Canadian troops in anyway involved in stopping this illegal trade? Won't fighting this trade pit Canadians against local folk (who have no other means of making money) and community leaders (warlords and certain elected officials) and thus create ill will?
Christie Blatchford: All of what you say is true, and it's one of the many things that makes the job here so hard . . . the answer is economic, to give, as a British major said the other day, the unemployed young man something better than a gun and a motorbike. This is why the coalition is putting as much emphasis on reconstruction and nation-building as on things military . . . but without security, nothing else can follow.
Steve Not, Halifax: Are the Canadian troops satisfied with the level of support they are receiving from coalition forces in terms of casualty evacuation and fighter support? Will they be as satisfied when the U.S. is no longer available to assist this summer?
Christie Blatchford: Yes to the first question. In fact, Canadians sing the praises of the Americans who both provide air cover and chopper out the wounded, and then care for them so tenderly in Germany. And no, I don't expect they will be as satisfied when the Americans aren't about.
Bob Bell, Kamloops, B.C.: As Canadians, we pride ourselves in providing a military presence by doing things differently from the U.S. I am very interested in how our soldiers are operating on a day-to-day basis and how it contrasts to the way in which U.S. soldiers operate. Is there a marked difference and if so have you talked to American soldiers about this and listened to what they have to say?
Christie Blatchford: I haven't had much of a chance to talk to the Americans, but rather to the Canadians who deal with them every day. The differences might be illustrated by the fact that the Yanks have such things as skulls-and -crossbones painted on their Humvees, and give their units nicknames like The Jedi, while the Canucks stick to business, no fancy nicknames and no cowboy poses.
But don't underestimate the Americans . . . I, for one, think there are differences to be sure, but that we complement one another.
Junior Flores, Mississauga, Ont.: Does or can the average Afghan make a distinction between a Canadian soldier and an American soldier?
Christie Blatchford: They do now, in Kandahar Province at least . . . not so much in (other areas) which have had much less exposure to our guys . . .
Ken Stevens, Toronto: Christie, how does Canadian military equipment compare with that of other coalition forces there? How do the troops feel about the quality of their equipment?
Christie Blatchford: I think that, despite the usual beefs that soldiers always have about kit (the way reporters always bitch about editors), we are really well-equipped . . . as well as the Yanks and Brits, except that we have virtually no air force here (and the Dutch are flying our old Chinook choppers), and far better than the poor Romanians, who muck about in Warsaw Pact vehicles but are plucky and brave anyway
Michael Shannon, Edmonton: After the firefight in which Pte. Costall was killed, many press reports said 32 Taliban had been killed. Have you seen any evidence to substantiate this claim?
Christie Blatchford: Nope, but none of us was at the FOB Robinson when that fight happened. And we, unlike the Taliban, do allow the opposition to collect their dead, so long as they aren't shooting when they do so.
Tracy Lavin, Vancouver: How are the soldiers in Afghanistan reacting to the news that Private Costall may have been killed by "friendly fire."
Christie Blatchford: I don't know that I can say . . . the news came out early here local time, but most of our fighting troops are in the field, so no one is in the big ass tents, where they live, to talk to . . . the others here, support folks mostly, are saddened but pragmatic too.
John Rankin, West Lake, Canada: Christie: I just want to tell you how much your accurate and sensitive reporting means to us, the family of a Canadian army officer scheduled on the next rotation into Kandahar in August. Thank you.
Christie Blatchford: It's been a real privilege to be here, John, and delighted you found my work good. Thanks.
Brenda McIntyre, Toronto: I was wondering if this search-and-destroy type of operation that the Canadian troops are now involved in is appropriate for counterinsurgency tactics. It did not work in Vietnam and it did not work for the Russians. I think conventional theory states that you must concentrate your troops in one area, make it secure, at least secure enough for NGOs to feel comfortable, give the civilian population some security and then expand like an inkspot. Is this discussed at all over there?
Christie Blatchford: I'm no military student, Brenda, but my sense of things is this - Canucks have by and large secured much of Kandahar Province, and they did it by going into the hills where the Taliban were, and making these villages so secure that schools are now open again etc., and by leader engagements. We also maintain . . . a permanent base from which our soldiers travel outside to villages and mountains and live there, in the field, for as long as weeks at a time. There's some belief that by doing that, we succeeded in driving the bad guys out, and that they are now fighting harder, in Helmand Province where the poppy fields are, in a more organized way. Here, the way to rout them appears to be just by appearing. The FOB Robinson has been attacked by Taliban 20 times in 45 days.
Jason Goveas, Ottawa: I grew up in Quetta, Pakistan, on the road to Kandahar. That was in the 1970s. Not much seems to have changed in the region except for a rise in fundamentalism. Poppy production is lucrative for Afghanis. How prevalent is it? What economic options exist for Afghanistan - domestically and for exchange with the rest of the world. Thanks.
Christie Blatchford: It's still prevalent. Afghanistan is the world's largest opium producer, and a lucrative one. I may be naive but education and economics will win this one, I think . . . the uneducated, unemployed young man is a helluva lot more vulnerable to fundamentalism and poppy-growing both if he has no other choices. The trick is to give him some.
Aubrey Charette, Ottawa: Hi Christie, a few weeks back, I asked the Afghan Ambassador to Canada if he could explain who Canada is fighting without using the terms Taliban or terrorists. He gave a rather unsatisfactory answer, intimating that we are fighting neo-Taliban. So I would like to ask you the same question: Who - without using meaningless tags - are we fighting? What ethnic group or clans do they come from? I would also like to know the attitude of the people of Kandahar, given that it was the home of Mullah Omar's movement and very popular there.
Christie Blatchford: I think Major Bill Fletcher, the head of Charlie Company, answered that the other day . . . The Taliban's spiritual home may be Kandahar City, he said, but its pocketbook is in those opium fields . . . oh, and that the two - opium and fundamentalism - are virtually impossible for the soldier in the field to distinguish.
Lynda Nicholls, Lhasa, Tibet/China: Thank you so much for your coverage in Afghanistan. Many Canadians need to hear about the real stories from the real area of news coverage . . . Do you at any time feel that you are not permitted to report on certain stories due to foreign policy issues or because they are not what the public wish to hear? In other words do you hold back? Thank you Ms. Blatchford, I've been enlightened.
Christie Blatchford: Thanks and, no, I've not felt restricted. All we've been asked not to report on are the details of place and exact numbers of Canucks in the field . . . the sorts of things that would be useful for a sophisticated foe, such as this group of Taliban.
Shawn Bull: Has our role in Afghanistan changed since we were originally deployed? If so, how? Thanx.
Christie Blatchford: I'm not sure I know, Shawn, but I don't think our role has changed . . .
James Birchall, Calgary: Ms. Blatchford: Your recent columns have shown a marked fondness for the people serving in Afghanistan while your columns prior show an ambivalence at best. What changed? Why?
Christie Blatchford: What prior columns? I don't think I've ever written about Afghans before. I've certainly never been here before. And when I've written about Canadian soldiers in other places (former Yugoslavia, first Gulf War), it was with similiar affection and regard.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Christie, thank you again for taking so much time today - in fact staying 90 minutes instead of the original 60 - to take more questions from our readers. We particularly appreciate that because it's already so late in the evening in Kandahar and you've still got a big story to write for tomorrow's Globe. Any last thoughts?
Christie Blatchford: The only thing I can say is that our Web readers are as thoughtful as our soldiers. Thanks to them all.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers: Thanks for your excellent questions today. As usual, it wasn't possible to get to all of them in the time allotted - even when Christie stayed longer than scheduled. If you have any further comments about this particular discussion with Christie, please submit them here . In doing so, please recognize that Christie is no longer available to answer questions.
If you have any further thoughts on whether these kinds of discussions are interesting and informative, please feel free to post a comment or e-mail me your views .