The Sins Of General David Petraeus

[Silas Stingy]

A hard-hitting opinion piece written by Michael Hasting appeared on BuzzFeed.com condemning US Central Intelligence Director David Petraeus, the former US military commander of forces in Afghanistan. Paetraeus resigned a few days ago when others in the US government made public his extramarital affair with author and the former General's biographer Paula Broadwell. This bomb of an article falls directly on target, and will definitely inspire some sort of reaction in you. For my part, I find the article completely credible.
S.S.
---
The Sins Of General David Petraeus
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-si...d-petraeus

[festive1]

Meh... Someone got his dick wet. Big fucking deal. I'm not a fan of Patraeus or his policies. However, who gives a shit who he was fucking? Married or otherwise, it simply shouldn't matter. I understand the military court marshals adulterers, but this is so common how can it be fair and effective? And what is the point of court marshaling adulterers in the first place? To deter people from cheating? To provide a convenient way to crucify select people? I'd rather see Patraeus brought down by his shitty policy decisions and influence rather than because he was having an affair. It looks like they are using the affair to finally go after him about everything else, when it should have started the other way around. Promoting a policy that cost thousands of American lives, thousands of civilian lives, and destroyed (or contributed to the destruction of) our reputation overseas is far more important than screwing someone extramaritally.

[Minimalist]

I was amazed to hear on one report that Petraeus had "succeeded" in Iraq.

Looking at that clusterfuck it is not a word I would have chosen for any part of the operation.

[TaraJo]

From what I've heard, part of the reason he left is because they have a strict policy with high ranking military and/or intelligence officers that says you can't have any affairs. They're afraid you'll wind up with a Mata Hari and accidentally compromise national security secrets. While I think that specific rule may need to be looked at somewhat, it would be difficult for him to command the respect of the genrals under him if he can't follow the same rules he expects them to follow.

[Kousbroek]

The poor fellow should be excused, he can't help it ...

[The Grand Nudger]

From what I've heard, part of the reason he left is because they have a strict policy with high ranking military and/or intelligence officers that says you can't have any affairs. They're afraid you'll wind up with a Mata Hari and accidentally compromise national security secrets. While I think that specific rule may need to be looked at somewhat, it would be difficult for him to command the respect of the genrals under him if he can't follow the same rules he expects them to follow.

Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage

These are the "core values" of what it takes to progress through the Army's rank structure as peddled to recruits by acronym and enshrined in official Army publications. That the General was loyal and dutiful is, I think, beyond question......the rest is a categorical fail. If a joe wants to get his peter wet and prefers strange then so be it, but at least be a fucking man about it "Yeah, I tapped that, and?". Not that this is the only area in which I think he failed to live up to those core values...just that it's the silliest.

[Faith No More]

The moral of the story is you can smite America's enemies without concern for human life nor collateral damage, just don't put your penis in the wrong vagina.

[DeistPaladin]

This

He did it by papering over what The Surge actually was: We took the Shiites' side in a civil war, armed them to the teeth, and suckered the Sunnis into thinking we’d help them out too. It was a brutal enterprise — over 800 Americans died during The Surge, while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives during a sectarian conflict that Petraeus’ policies fueled.

deserves so much more attention but sex is what sells.

[Cato]

Meh... Someone got his dick wet. Big fucking deal. I'm not a fan of Patraeus or his policies. However, who gives a shit who he was fucking? Married or otherwise, it simply shouldn't matter. I understand the military court marshals adulterers, but this is so common how can it be fair and effective? And what is the point of court marshaling adulterers in the first place? To deter people from cheating? To provide a convenient way to crucify select people? I'd rather see Patraeus brought down by his shitty policy decisions and influence rather than because he was having an affair. It looks like they are using the affair to finally go after him about everything else, when it should have started the other way around. Promoting a policy that cost thousands of American lives, thousands of civilian lives, and destroyed (or contributed to the destruction of) our reputation overseas is far more important than screwing someone extramaritally.

I agree; however, I see his affair being similar to Al Capone's tax evasion. Certainly not the worst entry on the resume, but if it can be used to get rid of him so be it.

[Tino]

From what I've heard, part of the reason he left is because they have a strict policy with high ranking military and/or intelligence officers that says you can't have any affairs. They're afraid you'll wind up with a Mata Hari and accidentally compromise national security secrets. While I think that specific rule may need to be looked at somewhat, it would be difficult for him to command the respect of the genrals under him if he can't follow the same rules he expects them to follow.

A little bit more on this TJ. I've been through the polygraphs they give for high level clearances, and the issue isn't that you can't have had an affair, used drugs, had gay relationships or any other "problem" - it's whether the situation exists that you can be blackmailed with it. When Patraeus took over the CIA he would have needed to be re-polygraphed, and would have been asked questions that would have revealed the affair. So the question is why this didn't raise the issue at the time - or perhaps it did. Did he lie about it, or was this step skipped in his hiring, or did he reveal it and it's just now being used. I'm interested to see the answers to those questions as they are learned.