Re the Pamela Hess appearance on C-SPAN on 3/9/07:

Ms. Hess's remarks during the "real evil" segment of her appearance were, at best, immature and illogical.

To say the Iraqi's have a higher acceptance of violence than Americans is to misunderstand human behavior in the face of chaos. Americans live in a society where most enjoy great personal security. We don't have to have a higher tolerance for violence. Iraqis are stuck in a dysfunctional society where violence reigns. They have no choice but to go on with their lives as best they can. I'm pretty sure those Americans lving among the Crips and Bloods in LA, who sleep on the floor every night to avoid drive-by gunfire, have a different view than Ms. Hess.

She says that US soldiers are facing Real Evil and feel like saviors of ordinary Iraqis everyday. Her descriptions of real evil were truly ghastly. But we didn't send our troops there to take part in unleashing chaos on Iraqis so that they could later feel like Captain America, temporarily saving little girls from the evils unleashed.

Soldiers do the best they can to get through each day until their tour ends. They find whatever ways they can to rationalize putting their lives on the line. Most do it only for their buddies. While we honor their sacrifice we can't allow their survival strategies to become our post hoc rationale for sending them in harms way.

Despite Ms. Hess's tearful appearance on C-SPAN (where she also admitted to never being in any especially dangerous situations in any of her Iraq visits) she may be more empathy-challenged than she appeared. Time will tell.

Mr. McGhan -

Just because Iraqis are used to violence doesn't mean folks in the West can't rationally judge such violence "evil," and that we as human beings cannot feel empathy or responsibility for those who suffer chaos unleashed by murderous criminals operating after a loss of civil order.

In addition, your comment about Ms. Hess's credibility being impugned by not "being in any especially dangerous situations" is petty, and besides the point. BTW, it can be pretty dangerous merely traveling from point A to B in Iraq.

Finally, your judgment that the US military personnel who maintain idealism - and admittedly some do not - are merely "rationalizing" a purpose for being there is insulting to the intelligence of those who experience Iraq and choose to feel that way. That includes Ms. Hess. And to some extent, me.

In short:

1. you are speaking from a perspective of false omniscience.

2. You malign those who make Hess's judgment who don't have experience with violence, while failing to establish your experiential bona fides that presumably give YOU authority to opine on the subject.

3. And the military personnel who do have experience with violence, and still choose to feel that Iraqis are worth protecting, you dismiss as "rationalizing."

This combination is exceptionally hubristic.

Dear Sir,

Your response to my remarks about part of Pamela Hess’s appearance on C-SPAN (3/9/07) seem to focus less on what Ms. Hess said, and more on whether I had any business expressing my opinions on what she said. Usually, especially in the political arena, there is no necessary background or expertise needed for the expression of opinion. One hopes that an opinion is cogent enough to stand on its own.

Ms. Hess did not say that Iraqis are “used to violence” but that they have a higher acceptance of violence than do Americans. I characterized her opinion as immature, by which I meant “lacking full development,” and offered an example of Americans who might not agree with her. American history is filled with other examples of Americans roughly (even horribly) treated by their fellow citizens.

I did not criticize her opinion that Real Evil exists in Iraq (as it has in Bosnia, Rwanda, El Salvador, Darfur, Tibet, Armenia and any of thousands of places throughout history). In fact, I acknowledged that her descriptions of evil were truly ghastly. I described her view (that military personnel see their mission as trying to defeat real evil) as illogical. By this I meant that we did not send them there for that work, but rather to destroy the Hussein regime’s WMD’s. It is illogical to reason “after the fact” (i.e., post hoc) that since the original goal could not be achieved, we can assert some other goal as a substitute.

I reviewed Ms. Hess’s remarks and have decided that it’s not clear that she believes fighting real evil is an appropriate post hoc goal for our military personnel, so I retract the claim that she is illogical. Instead, my opinion is that anyone who takes her report on the reasons military personnel give for why they fight as providing appropriate alternate goals would be guilty of illogical thinking.

Finally, I did not, as you claim, “dismiss” military personnel as “merely ‘rationalizing’ a purpose for being there.” Your view of “rationalizing” seems different than mine. Rationalizing, in my view, is an understandable human behavior that we use to grasp the world and our place in it. It’s been my experience that people will sometimes give reasons for their behavior that don’t always make sense, or square with other facts that I eventually become aware of. Consequently, I tend to reserve judgment about such explanations for behavior.

In the case of US military personnel, there is no way to know, at this distance, why they really do what they do. Since they risk their lives in service to the US, I’m willing to cut them a great deal of slack and not criticize their reasons. Whatever gets them safely through their duty tour is OK by me. Some are genuinely idealistic, while others are not. I make no judgment about this, although you seem to have inferred that I did. However, I do believe that if we adopt their reasons for fighting as THE reason for supporting the war, we will be engaging in illogical thinking.

Finally, I see that I was unclear about my mention of Ms. Hess’s inexperience with dangerous situations. It was not, as you say, to be petty, but rather to imply that inexperience may be an important factor in how she interprets what she sees and hears in Iraq. I should have been more explicit. As we hear every day, it is decidedly dangerous to travel from one place to another in Iraq. She is lucky to have avoided such dangers, but it could well affect her reporting.

Your response to my remarks about part of Pamela Hess’s appearance on C-SPAN (3/9/07) seem to focus less on what Ms. Hess said, and more on whether I had any business expressing my opinions on what she said.

Not really, my response included both a critique of the substance of your comment, as well as an in kind rebuttal of perceived superficiality: It is you who chose to focus on who has authority or experience to express that opinion. I was merely throwing this (disagreed with) rationale for who has the authority to have a relevant opinion back at you.

Usually, especially in the political arena, there is no necessary background or expertise needed for the expression of opinion. One hopes that an opinion is cogent enough to stand on its own.

Agreed, which is why your comments about Hess having less authority because she was "not in any particularly dangerous situations" and because she was raised in the insulated West were unfair. This is compounded by the fact that while one does not require certain experience to have a valuable opinion, one can have experience that makes an opinion more valuable.

For example, Ms. Hess's opinions on Iraq deserve due consideration and more respect because she's actually been there and is reporting what she experienced.

Instead, my opinion is that anyone who takes her report on the reasons military personnel give for why they fight as providing appropriate alternate goals would be guilty of illogical thinking.

And I would in turn point out that this judgment is illogical, as we in the West regard life, liberty and plain humanism as sacred, and many of us choose to apply those values to cultures other than our own, not wishing to dilute this frame of reference with relativistic rationale.

It’s been my experience that people will sometimes give reasons for their behavior that don’t always make sense, or square with other facts that I eventually become aware of. Consequently, I tend to reserve judgment about such explanations for behavior.

Yet you still refuse the possibility that military personnel come to the opinion that the Iraqi people merit protection rationally or logically. Thus continues what I consider an intellectually hubristic opinion.

In the case of US military personnel, there is no way to know, at this distance, why they really do what they do.

Sure there is. Ask them. In my case, go live with them in Iraq for a bit and ask them. Some are very much like you describe, others are quite idealistic, yet perfectly logical about this idealism, a possibility you seem to reject.

Finally, I see that I was unclear about my mention of Ms. Hess’s inexperience with dangerous situations. It was not, as you say, to be petty, but rather to imply that inexperience may be an important factor in how she interprets what she sees and hears in Iraq.

Fair enough. But being shot at does not improve one's ability to interpret the drastic violence taking place against Iraqis. Witnessing first-hand stories and the after-effects of such violence are plenty.

Bottom line: I've been to Iraq, and while I may have come away less sentimental than Ms. Hess, I do not find her opinion very "illogical," even while I can appreciate your opinion. Thus, I think you speak with undue certainty and authority in your judgment.

Prioritizing the protection of innocent life is not an illogical priority, even as an evolved rationale.

Thanks for your perspective. Having finally engaged on the issues, we can respectfully agree to disagree. In the end, alas, we may not be able to hope for better than this. One of the many dilemmas of democracy. Keep on blogging.