As I wrote on Friday, I agree with Max Boot that the resignation of David Petraeus is a tragedy. That such a distinguished career should end on such a tawdry note is appalling, especially since Petraeus’s place in our military history ought to guarantee him the nation’s highest accolades rather than to be subjected to the sort of tabloid scrutiny that is usually reserved for the denizens of reality television shows. Yet as much as I regret the circumstances, I disagree with those like Max who take the position that the former general’s resignation was unnecessary. Petraeus stumbled badly when he engaged in extramarital activity that wound up involving him in a bizarre harassment case that was investigated by the FBI. But he was right to assume that the only honorable course of action once it was uncovered was for him to leave the CIA.
Whenever public figures are driven from office as a result of private misconduct, the decision is often followed by a chorus of criticism about the puritanical nature of American society. We are also inevitably asked to compare the actions of the wrongdoer to those of former President Bill Clinton, whose outrageous behavior and lies didn’t put a dent his popularity let alone cause him to step down, even after impeachment. A better argument is that made by those, like Max, who ask us how much the country would have lost if the same standards were applied to heroes of the past who were also guilty of similar bad judgment. Yet in spite of that, I think Petraeus would have been wrong to “brazen it out” by attempting to hold on to his office. Doing so would have been an unpardonable distraction for the CIA at a time when it is under fire for the Benghazi fiasco. Moreover, no man, no matter how great he might be, is indispensable. While the general may well serve his country again in some capacity in the future, having called his judgment into question in this manner, it was impossible for him to remain at the CIA.
The notion that there is something wrong with a standard of conduct that treats infidelity as warranting nothing more than a scolding is one that seems to be increasingly popular. It is argued that the privacy of public officials should be respected just as much as that of private citizens. Viewed from that perspective, David Petraeus’s private life is none of our business. Unlike Bill Clinton, who committed perjury in order to cover up his affairs, Petraeus appears to have broken no laws. So long as that remains the case, why should the nation be deprived of the services of the man who was arguably the ablest American general in more than half a century?
It all sounds quite reasonable, but there are serious problems with this line of thought.
Although it is true that a number of famous Americans in the past have also been guilty of sexual indiscretions, it is incorrect to say the American people gave them a pass for it. For example, had John F. Kennedy’s disgusting conduct in the White House with multiple partners — including interns — been made public, it is doubtful he would have survived the furor. If there is something puritanical about a society in which promiscuous goings-on in the presidential mansion is considered beyond the pale, then so be it. As much as we know that human beings are fallible, there is nothing unreasonable about expecting leaders to behave as if their high office requires them to be on their best behavior while being so honored.
Indeed, the one prominent philanderer who is often cited as a precedent for a man surviving such a scandal — Alexander Hamilton — only did so because he exposed his own private misbehavior so as to make it clear that he was innocent of any public malfeasance, as his critics had charged.
Being the head of the CIA is also a circumstance that should also have made it more, rather than less, important that Petraeus not engage in this sort of behavior. It is a given that intelligence officials ought not do anything that renders them vulnerable to blackmail of any sort. Once he was told of the affair, the immediate response of James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was that Petraeus must step down. That was in keeping with that standard. The idea that Petraeus is so uniquely talented that his presence in his post obligates us to ignore his bad judgment doesn’t hold water. As a battlefield and theater commander, Petraeus had no peers in the armed forces. But as important as his work in Langley was, he cannot make the same claim in the field of intelligence.
David Petraeus had a unique status in our public life. That was not just because of his brilliance in Iraq but because he had come to exemplify the ideals of military honor, sacrifice and public service. It may be unfair to expect a hero to behave like one, but that is the price you pay for the sort of applause the general deservedly received. Indeed, unlike his many supporters who are right to mourn his retirement, Petraeus understood that the only proper thing to do once his predicament had become public was to withdraw from his office. This exile from responsibility need not be permanent. But in stepping down, Petraeus has reaffirmed the notion that misconduct warrants more than a shrug. In doing so, he has rendered the country a service that should be applauded.
He also may have lied to a governmental committee regarding Benghazi. He may have done that under pressure from a White House that had the goods on him, or for some other reason. Regardless, it appears he lied to the American people. n nNow it turns out his lover may have had secret information as regards the goings on in Benghazi, too. Oops. n nHe knew the jig was up, and resigned appropriately. n nYes, he pulled our ass out of the fire in Iraq, for a while anyway, but only because the war was fought half assed up to that point, and he did it with the only possible way he could given the ridiculous rules of engagement and limited manpower he was granted – and agreed to – by winning the enemy's 'hearts and minds' at the expense of our young peoples' lives and limbs. n nAnd, he had the chutzpah to blame violence on American troops, on Israeli actions. He never retracted that statement. That spoke to a strategic misunderstanding or politically motivated misrepresentation of reality. Nothing honorable there. n nNow, we have lost the enemies' hearts and minds (if we ever had them), and the war in Iraq will have been for naught, but the lives and limbs lost are forever. Very sad. Nothing to celebrate. And that includes Petraeus' role in the whole debacle.
Do these standards of conduct apply to gay couples as well? If a highly placed gay male or female government employee legally married to a partner of the same sex has in an extramarital affair with a male, female or person of indeterminate gender, do our high American standards of morality demand that he or she resign?r nr nIf I understand our current national security standard, a philandering heterosexual in a sensitive position, like General Petraeus is more vulnerable to blackmail than an unmarried homosexual in an equally sensitive position like Ambassador Stevens. A single guy, our late Ambassador, unlike Petraeus, was free to sleep with anyone of any gender without raising security concerns. r nr nJust saying…
"…he had come to exemplify the ideals of military honor, sacrifice and public service…" n nMore so than those incredibly brave men who fought and died to rescue our Ambassador? What honor was there in lying about how and why and by who they were savagely murdered? Where is the honor in cravenly hewing to the administration's false narrative? n nAs for Petraeus's "role in the debacle," that will be for a congressional committee to determine. The General's middle aged misadventures with a careerist floozie are merely a distraction. n n
Go ahead, wingnuts, cling to your Benghazi conspiracy theories. Further discredit yourselves.
Problem with us wingnuts is that in a day when Hillel spells Lefty we begin to favor Shammai. n nThere are 3 overt questions about Benghazi unanswered. na) The before: Why were clear and repeated concerns about poor security ignored for months? nb) The during: Why were clear and repeated calls for rescue ignored for some seven hours? nc) The after: Why was a story concocted and determinedly fostered on the American public which is, even at this juncture, demonstrably false? n nThere are several covert questions unanswered. na) What critical mission brought Ambassador Stevens to so dangerous and poorly defended an American outpost? nb) Was the American Ambassador deliberately lured to an exposed placed and betrayed? nc) Was the Turkish Ambassador complicit in the betrayal? n nFinally, there are the larger and more strategic questions. na) What is the administration's policy in the defensive and entirely justifiable war on Islamism? nb) Why does the administration submissively avoid calling terrorists, terrorists and Islamist Fascism, Islamist Fascism and deliberately create false nomenclatures and narratives to conceal Islamist malevolence and violence? nc) Is the Department of State as wrong about how to fight Islamists today as it was about how to fight the Soviets yesterday. (Recall that our Ambassadors were negotiating away American power wholesale even as the Berlin Wall was falling an the soviet Empire collapsing.)
Pathetic imperialistic expansion retoric from the left. Unfortuntely we will all see in the end what America did for the world no thanks to those such as yourself bashing it while living in the fruits of its prosperity, security and benevolence. You will not enjoy a world where America is a third world country. Start looking for a Berka that will keep you warm in the winter.
Our leaders must live by the same rules as we all do, further lead by example of good conduct in their professional and personal lives. David did the right thing in resigning, my question is why not sooner. He may have popped it when he did because he found that he was being blackmailed by the administration. n nThere are rumors floating around about all kinds of borderline or improper CIA activities. An officer of the caliber of David would not condone such – unless he was being 'controlled' by this indiscrection.
“Doing so would have been an unpardonable distraction for the CIA at a time when it is under fire for the Benghazi fiasco.”
It may be that Petraeus was right to resign. However, since it appears that the Administration knew about Petraeus’s misconduct from some time and only acted on this knowledge after the election, there is more than a hint here that Obama’s people manipulated the Petraeus issue as part of a Benghazi coverup. Now the election is over and Petraeus can be purged and his scandal used as a distraction, with the possibility of prosecution held over him to encourage him not to be publicly forthcoming about Benghazi. Or so one might guess.
L'hypocrisie est un hommage que rend le vice à la vertu. nFrançois de LA ROCHEFOUCAULD (1613 – 1680)
More appropriately: Live by the sword, die for craven loyalty to a crafty and cynical commander.
I agree with MainesMichael about the nerve of Petraeus blaming violence on US troops on Israeli action. To me, that just points to something fundamentally wrong with the Obama administration’s entire foreign policy makeup and view of Judaism and Israel.
But aside from that, it is more than just fear of blackmail. He publically admitted to resigning because of the affair – not even thinking of the additional pain that he caused his family by openly stating it. To me, that shows a total lack of judgment – which is exactly what the head of the CIA is suppose to need. Additionally, Alana just pointed out a speech that Paula Broadwell gave PUBLICALLY about confidential CIA activity.
Now, she didn’t say where the information was obtained, but it appears logically from Petraeus. To me, that shows a lack of judgment that Petraeus has shown telling someone confidential CIA information to anyone he feels like. Additionally, Broadwell was sending threatening emails to someone else (which was why the FBI reportedly was investigating the matter.) Now, here is Petraeus giving confidential information to someone who one, is telling the world and two, is going around threatening people. She sounds unstable to me – yet Petaeus didn’t think about the damage from her actions, which resulted from his actions.
So blackmail was the least of the harm to worry about – it is opening a Pandora’s box that wasn’t vetted.
good comment. n nbefore contentions shut down all reader comments, the comments were pretty nutty sometimes and usually venomous, but they were lively and there was some intelligent debate. n nI've returned to find the commenters few and the place bereft of much other than the crazies who hold that America's purpose is none other than to serve as israel's protector without right of disagreement with any of Israel's crazier policies and pronouncements, and the even crazier people stuck to the idea that Obama isn't a liberal but some secret super IslamoMarxist. n n
one would hope that people coming here to debate the right-wing loons would not be less informed while being more vapid and venomous. n nyou're rather a disappointmnet.