http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-petraeus-allen-sex-scandal-20121113,0,29930.story
David Petraeus had an affair with his biographer. The affair came to light when the biographer supposedly sent anonymous and threatening emails to some other woman whom she thought was also sleeping with Petraeus. Somehow, through some convoluted rigmarole that hasn't yet been unearthed, the investigation into these emails not only revealed the affair between Petraeus and the biographer but has also pulled some other Army chiefs into suspicion.
Tell me again how someone's extramarital affairs has any role on their functions as a professional? Why did Petraeus have to resign just because his extramarital affair became public? Seriously, other than families closely connected to the protagonists of this drama, who cares?
Indiscretions by people in high positions have become the rule, not the exception. And even among the ranks of sexual indiscretions indulged by those in power, Petraeus' seems rather mild. Petraeus didn't tweet pictures of his wiener, like Antony Wiener did, didn't patronize a prostitution ring, like Eliot Spitzer did, didn't solicit male partners in a public restroom, like Larry Craig, and didn't even, like Arnold Schwartznegger, have a secret "other" family. He slept with someone who wasn't his wife. So what? Why should this become media fodder and why should we be subjected to sordid details about who did whom and when every single moment of our waking lives?
Can anyone in this day and world be puzzled and appalled at adultery? And why confine ourself to this day and world? In the history of the world and yes, even the Christian American world, you puritanical hypocrites, adultery is fairly common. The only difference between this age and all the previous ones is that we are so incredibly quick to leap up on our moral pedestal and sneer at someone. And I think we secretly sneer not at the act, but at the discovery.
2 comments:
yeah.. what a drama! Normally the affair shouldn't have mattered at all, but I think Petraeus resigned because Adultery is an offence under the military system (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/11/green-military-justice-petraeus-knew-adultery-clea/). Moreover he, as a 4 star general, is setting an example to the rest of army/military families who keep their trust that their spouses would remain loyal to them when they leave on tours. If there is no trust, there is no looking forward to the union after the tour. It's a huge morale killer for troops in combat, I'd think. Petraes and his wife were lauded as an ideal military couple to be emulated, now it turns out it was all never true. Hence the fall out from the scandal (Also, some nonsense about there being security breach after the Bengazi crap. which is not true).
Hmm... okay fine. I'll concede the point about adultery being some kind of an offense under military law.
But the stuff about trust? Hmm.. not so easy to justify: trust between him and his wife has been broken. Right. But trust between him and his men? Not at all. Are they trusting his superior military acumen, or are they trusting that he sleeps only with one woman? And what would matter more? Probably the first.
Is it a morale-killer for troops in combat because now they feel like he's not spending enough time thinking about them? Or is it because they look up to him as a role model? Probably the second reason.
So again, how far does his influence go with his troops? It might very well extend to their thinking of his marriage as ideal and trying to live up to that ideal. But why are they being faithful to their
wives? Because he was supposedly faithful to his?
Somehow, it doesn't add up. Military men are like men everywhere else- some are faithful to their wives, some are not. To put one person up on a pedestal and then bemoan the fact that he fell from it seems more than a bit hypocritical, it seems self- deluding.
Post a Comment