That is one important side of the case. But another is - why is it acceptable that a biography of a CIA director is written with the cooperation of that director while he is in function. That is asking for trouble.
US CIA Director Resigns
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Petraus had a hard and fast rule while in Iraq, according to his XO, that he never did interviews or considered bigraphies/memoirs while actively working, and that he was never alone with anyone, particularly the opposite sex to ensure there could be no possible inferences.
When he got to the CIA, he immediately broke both of those long standing rules with this woman to do his biography. I saw an interview with the XO from Iraq yesterday who had called Petraeus the day before and asked him why on earth he would do that.
He indicated that the General did not have a good answer other than that he had "screwed up real bad," and that he "thought" the book was going to be about Iraq in general and by the time he found out it was actually a bio on him, he was too far into it and it was too late.
That sounds like hogwash too me. Perhaps he was too far into something else at that point...but it is completely out of character for this man.
I think there is more to it than we are hearing for sure...and maybe never will.
When you consider that the leading General in charge of all of Africa, and the Admiral in charge of the CSG operating in the Med were stood down/relieved in conjunction with, or soon after Benghazi, and now this occurs to Petraeus just before he is scheduled to testify before congress on Benghazi and the US General in charge of all NATO forces in Afghanistan is now being dragged into the scandal...it's just too many very top people going down all at once for it to be coincidence to me.
Almost like a silent purge going on.
Last edited:
I think we all need to accept that when you achieve the highest office that none of your peccadilloes will be "secrets" in the usual sense of the word.
I see no mystery in the timing of this. Obama has his second term and is now obligated to no-one. He is now able to clear the decks and replace them with the people he genuinely will choose, rather than those he needs to accept.
Moral Impropriety is simple the method used to communicate that this time they mean it and they want you to go. The fact that it has also embroiled the current Theatre commander of Afghanistan is no surprise either.
I would say that 2014 being the deadline for the withdraw has just firmed up a lot more.
I see no mystery in the timing of this. Obama has his second term and is now obligated to no-one. He is now able to clear the decks and replace them with the people he genuinely will choose, rather than those he needs to accept.
Moral Impropriety is simple the method used to communicate that this time they mean it and they want you to go. The fact that it has also embroiled the current Theatre commander of Afghanistan is no surprise either.
I would say that 2014 being the deadline for the withdraw has just firmed up a lot more.
I say those things can only be taken advantage of if society think they can be taken advantage of. If society doesn't care how many affairs the general have then that holds no power over him.
I'm not advocating infidelity, but I fail to see the connection between how faithful he is to his wife and how well he can serve his country.
Such an asinine reason for getting rid of a capable man if that's true, but like many have mentioned, there are definitely things going on under the table.
This is what I think the most possibile answer for all those kinds of events.
Maybe he just knows too much, or just does too good on his position
and forgets to closing his curtains one evening.
Thus, be a palpable prey for the wolves in the darkness....sigh,
why many splendid american dreams end like that....
At least, I hope he can have a peaceful late life, as he had fulfilled his duties and all.
Last edited:
Actually, infedelity in a marriage has long been recognized as a serious failing for positions of public trust, in the military or any other sensitive position.
The reason is because it becomes a significant vulnerability for blackmail for the individual and his/her family. Spouses, kids, grandkids, etc.
That is why it matters.
Generally for security clearances of secret or above, if you have been unfaithful in a marital relationship, there is a very serious question as to whether you will be approved for such a clearance for those reasons...unless some very plausible explanation is given involving a very good reason for you breaking that covenant of marriage and all that goes with it.
That's why it is so important, and as an individual that understood it full well, that is also why Petraeus resigned and said what he did in his announcement regarding his resignation. He had violated that trust and made himself vulnerable at one of the highest levels.
Now, IMHO, that is exactly what Clinton should have done...but as an elected official, particularly as President, he gets all the clearances (almost all that is) as a matter of course, irrespective of his behavior beforehand...and even durung if he has enough political support.
That is the shame of it, IMHO.
solarz
Brigadier
I'm not convinced about that. There are plenty of problems other than infidelity that can open a person up for blackmail. A man's private life should be his own business, so long as it does not affect his performance on the job.
I think it's much more an issue of American culture. You almost never hear about these kinds of scandals in Canada. Is it because Canadian men in positions of trust don't stray? Hell no! Our public safety minister, Vic Toews, had an affair with his babysitter. If he had been an American politician, this would've been all over the news and there's no way he would've retained office. Yet here in Canada, he's still sitting at his desk.
ABC78
Junior Member
An interesting discussion on C-Span about Military Ethics and Leadership.
Thomas Ricks talked about military ethics and leadership. During the preceding year a number of generals and admirals had been involved in legal and ethical issues, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had ordered an investigation into the reasons behind the problems. Of the controversies surrounding Afghanistan war leaders former CIA Director General David Petraeus and General John Allen, Mr. Ricks stated that the real scandal was not their behavior with women but rather the high turnover rate among the U.S. military leaders in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. He stressed the need for a better process in finding competent military leadership, saying, “The media, the Congress, lack sufficient military experience to really know what good generalship looks like.”
Mr. Ricks is the author of The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today.
[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Rickso[/video]
Thomas Ricks talked about military ethics and leadership. During the preceding year a number of generals and admirals had been involved in legal and ethical issues, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had ordered an investigation into the reasons behind the problems. Of the controversies surrounding Afghanistan war leaders former CIA Director General David Petraeus and General John Allen, Mr. Ricks stated that the real scandal was not their behavior with women but rather the high turnover rate among the U.S. military leaders in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. He stressed the need for a better process in finding competent military leadership, saying, “The media, the Congress, lack sufficient military experience to really know what good generalship looks like.”
Mr. Ricks is the author of The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today.
[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Rickso[/video]
As hard as it is to say, all men are weak when it comes to this kind of stuff.
I think it's truly sad that for all of the great work he has done for America, he is sacked for something he does in his personal life.
I think it's truly sad that for all of the great work he has done for America, he is sacked for something he does in his personal life.
Yes it is...but at his level, and in hos position...like any position of significant public trust dealing with security and the national defense...he hopelessly compromised himself by what he did.
It's as old as mankind. Honey trap and then blackmail to get at secrets...or to keep them. We may never know all that went on, why it happened, and what he may or may not have been threatened with, but at least he recognized this and did the honorable thing and resigned (and perhaps he was forced to, we just do not know), knowing himself that he had compromised himself.
At the level of pblic trust he was at, and with the issues he was involved in...it certainly is an issue.solarz said:
And, the culture that it is about is not an "American" thing. It is about fundamental moral principle. As I said to Tphuang, it is as old as mankind. Honey traps lead to blackmail and compromise, whether intended or not, and whether the people involved directly had that in mind or not. Someone can come along later, if the secret is kept and then found out by others, who can easily use it against that person and his/her nation.
Politicians are treated differently...look at Clinton...he remained in his desk as President. But he should not have. He should have done the hionrable thing in the end and resigned like this General did...but he did not and with a split government (like it is today) he was only going to be half-way brought to account...which he was and was impeached, but not convicted. He was also later disbarred for lieing about it.
Perhaps the same deadlock exists in Canada, I do not know. But I do know that it puts the national interests at risk.
Obtaining the clearance for such positions outside of politicians requires a very thorough background check. If a person cheats on his or her spouse and does any of the following, they almost universally do not get the clearance.
1) Has no good reason for the infedility other than they "wanted to," or they gave into their lsut, or some such. Such inclinations show that they do not have the moral fiber necesssary to keep the trust they will be entrusted with.
2) Tries to hide the infedelity and the back ground check finds it out.
3) Lies about it during the background check.
In those cases, almost universally a candidate is disqualified for a secret or above clearance...and for obvious reasons. Excepting a good reason for the breach of trust, it shows that they will be prone to not hold the trust of the nation.
Such personal decisions, while they are certainly free to make them, do have consequences, and as well they should. To not consider such things involving positions of national trust dealing with national security would be very wreckless for any nation. It is not about the mores of that society per sey as mch as it is about simply being about an individual being able to stand by their word and be trusted. If they have a propemsity in their private life to not do that...even if it does not have only to do with marriage, because they also ask about your job histoy, ie. being fired for cause, about your credit ratings and why you default on loans or have a bankruptcy. Anything associated with suuch issues involving a persons ability to be trusted are looked into very carefully and very thoroughly.
At thoselevels, they send FBI investigators out to the places where such potential breaches in trust occurred, whether with family, business, financnes, etc. and they ask the people involved very probing and very thorough questions dealing with the applicant's personal life regarding any and all of those issues or any like them. It is precisely what the background investigation for such clearances is for.
Last edited: