It’s a good thing that current political standards for handling adultery were not in place during World War II. Otherwise Dwight Eisenhower, who was notoriously close with his attractive English chauffeur, Kay Summersby, would never have remained as supreme allied commander, much less been elected to the presidency. These days, by contrast, sexual misconduct is one of the few sins that can bring down a senior military officer or civilian officeholder, such as David Petraeus.
We do not, of course, have a consistent standard of disqualifying adulterers. But unless you are as brazen and charming as Bill Clinton, you are likely to be toast. Whether this makes sense is another question. Given how many of our greatest leaders, from Alexander Hamilton to Franklin Roosevelt, have been guilty of sexual impropriety, it is hard to imagine how American history might have turned out if today’s Puritanical standards had been enforced in the past.
Certainly it makes sense to hold officers and officials responsible for other misconduct arising out of a sexual situation, whether it’s committing perjury or creating a hostile workplace environment. But in the case of Petraeus, at least to judge by what has come out so far, there is no sign that he did anything wrong beyond violating his marriage vows.
If newspaper reports are to be believed, the FBI only became involved when his biographer, Paula Broadwell, with whom he had an extramarital relationship, sent anonymous harassing emails to a Tampa socialite named Jill Kelley, who, along with her husband, was friends with Petraeus and his wife. The case was then investigated by an FBI agent who was apparently a friend of Kelley’s; certainly it is hard to imagine the FBI getting involved in a random case of cyber-harassment. In the course of their investigation, the FBI found out that Broadwell had sent the messages and that she and Petraeus were involved in a relationship. The FBI seems to have investigated further to see if there was a breach of national security, but, based on what has come out so far, there was none. Yet this did not stop the agents from notifying their superiors about Petraeus’s private affairs.
There is not even a credible allegation in the public domain that Petraeus shared classified information with Broadwell although, given the way that the government overclassifies even routine information, that is hard to avoid in normal interactions, much less amorous ones, involving someone as privy to as many secrets as the director of central intelligence. (To take but one ridiculous example of many: the existence of Delta Force, the nation’s elite counter-terrorist unit, is officially secret. You can read all about Delta’s exploits in numerous books and articles, but if a government official mentions that Delta exists he is technically breaking the law.)
No charges have been lodged against Petraeus, nor are there likely to be. He cannot even be accused of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice by committing adultery since he was apparently already retired from the military when he had his relationship with Broadwell. Adultery is not against the law for a CIA director or a CIA employee, although intelligence operatives are supposed to disclose all of their relationships so as to avoid the possibility of blackmail. Even in the military, charges of adultery are seldom prosecuted unless the relations occurred with a subordinate to the detriment of the general command climate or there was some other evidence of wrongdoing. Thus Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, an army officer, is currently on trial at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, because his former mistress accused him of forcible sodomy and other crimes; it is doubtful if he would ever have been prosecuted if their relationship had ended amicably.
A similar standard is followed in corporate America, where a number of high-level executives, most recently Lockheed Martin President Christopher Kubasik, have been fired for inappropriate relationships with subordinates. But Broadwell never worked for Petraeus. He certainly made a mistake in having a relationship with her (not least because of her bizarre conduct with Kelley), and he forthrightly admitted as much in resigning, but it is far from clear that it should have been a firing offense.
Petraeus might very well have survived in office if he had decided to brazen it out. Instead, he apparently chose to fall on his sword, samurai-style, because he thought he had disgraced himself and his family. That speaks well to his standard of honor, but our government will suffer if we lose the services of such extraordinary public servants over such personal peccadilloes.
Max Boot is once again avoiding an awkward question: why did he probably lie about the tape?
Max Boot failed to mention the President who best challenged Bill Clinton as the Lothario-In-Chief. That would be JFK. n nOf course Petreaus had to resign — one way or another, he was going under Obama's black bus.
If it was a democrats there is no reason for resigning. But of course this is a republican and therefore he must resign. nClinton is the prototype. nThis was a set-up. He felt through!!! Who is to benefit? nThere must be other more vital reasons for his departure. Conflict with the President is the single most likely reason. nThe country may be the main looser.
Jimmy Carter said in an interview in the November 1976 issue of PLAYBOY that he had lusted in his heart, forbidden by Jesus in Matthew 5:27-29: n n27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. n nWhen Franklin Roosevelt was elected President, Eleanor Roosevelt moved into a house at 20 East 11th Street, New York City. Her neighbors must have known. Perhaps they even guessed that she was having a relationship with a woman. FDR was having an affair with a different woman in the White House. The press was silent. nEverything changed once the Clinton impeachment trial occurred. Adultery became a legitimate subject for the press. It followed as the night the day that an important and capable political figure like Petraeus would fall victim to this unfortunate fad.
It's not that the standards have changed — although people do seem to enjoy finding things to be outraged about than they used to — it's the information flow and its instantaneousness.
Why are all the commenters talking about the sex angle? That is absurd. We should be discussing the man's probably lie—that may have even saved Obama's reelection campaign. What is this obsession with sex?
Because it is a distraction. An honest and responsible administration would want to quell all the wild rumors circulating about Benghazi. This administration welcomes them. A confused American public is Obama's best protection.
I am so frustrated. There is far too much talk about the sex and Petraeus' military accomplishments. The heck with these secondary matters. This man helped Obama get reelected with his video distraction—and the overwhelming evidence indicates he outright lied!
Boot is as naive as the day is long, if he actually believes Petreaus resigned over the affair alone. He resigned to stall having to testify on Benghazi. The affair, is the smoke screen. Did he have the affair? Sure he did. But, he's a lifelong Democrat too, so it's a resume enhancement.
I have no problem believing the illicit sexual affair is ultimately responsible for his resignation. But how long did the White House know about it? Was it before his selection to the CIA? More importantly, why did he probably lie to save Obama's rear end? Was he not so subtly blackmailed? The heck with all this sex stuff. n nHow do you know about his allegedly being a Democrat? Do you have proof? I have heard he is a Republican.
his resignation doesn't affect any obligation to testify should he receive a subpoena. n non what basis have you concluded that Petraeus is " a life-long Democrat"? n nintelligence and education aren't enough to make that conclusion.
The basis of his own mouth. Anything else?
please do share with the class.
No. Not the head of the CIA. To hell with him. He violated a rule that we insist that all of his employees follow, for good reason. __Just because he is a favored member of the elite (who sold many magazines and burned through a lot of oil, explosives, steel and human lives on behalf of the elite), does not make him immune to the rules of his organization.__Fire him. And for that matter, send him a bill for the $500B we spent on COIN activities extending our little unncessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No. The rules apply to all CIA employees. And it's pretty clear that he's an out of control security risk: "Prominent members of conservative, Washington-based defense think tanks were given permanent office space at his headquarters and access to military aircraft to tour the battlefield. They provided advice to field commanders that sometimes conflicted with orders the commanders were getting from their immediate bosses." n nWhy does Max Boot think this man is exempt from the law? From the rules of his place of employment? Are our elites hopelessly corrupt? n
Tell his wife what a wonderfully honorable man he is. Why do conservatives get so sexually aroused by military men?
he NEEDN'T have resigned, but what is difficult in understanding that he thought it was what he SHOULD do?
Max Boot wrote that “Dwight Eisenhower, who was notoriously close with his attractive English chauffeur, Kay Summersby, would never have remained as supreme allied commander, much less been elected to the presidency.”
According to Wikipedia, Max Boot was born in September 1969, after Eisenhower died in March 1969. In contrast, I was alive during Eisenhower’s WWII efforts and his Presidency. I do recall that people noticed Kay Summersby’s being Eisenhower’s driver. And I have a vague recollection that there may have been a Hollywood movie about Summersby and Eisenhower, or a broader movie topic that included Summersby and Eisenhower. But despite rumors, I never heard or read any convincing evidence that Eisenhower and Summersby had an “extra-marital” affair.
Roger Folsom
Max, I suggest you brush up on your history better. The Eisenhower-Summersby affair story is now regarded to be nothing but a lot of hot air started by a senile Harry Truman in "Plain Speaking" which then led Summersby in her dying years to invent an affair that most scholars believe never happened.