A fallen general, scarlet letter journalism
I’ve been absolutely creeped out the last seventy-two hours by the ridiculous, 19th-century tone of the reporting about the scandal that brought down former General David Petraeus, who was serving as CIA director until he abruptly resigned last week.
A mystifying amount of the reporting has been leveled at the question of whether Petraeus’s purported mistress, Paula Broadwell, was a temptress, a seductress, a siren, or an outright harlot. (Those appear to be our options.)
“The battle over the reputation of Paula Broadwell, who had an affair with General David Petraeus, might as well be taking place on some fifteen-year-old’s Facebook page,” Slate magazine reported, before indulging in much the same gossip through an entire article.
At the same time, a huge amount of ink is being spilled over the mysterious, mystifying, astonishing fact that a powerful man serving his country in the emotional crucible of wartime, while surrounded by admirers — had a sexual affair.
I know, right? Shocking.
Fred Kaplan, a writer at Slate who I usually admire, indulges in this bit of tomfoolery.
The key to this initial attraction was probably not sexual but rather biographical. Broadwell had once been a West Point cadet, like Petraeus. She’d had training as a parachutist, as Petraeus had in his youth.*
She was obsessed with physical fitness, especially running, as was Petraeus. In short, regardless of gender, Broadwell was exactly the sort of aspiring officer-intellectual that Petraeus was keen to mentor.
Uh-huh.
A report in the Washington Post, meanwhile, spills a lot of ink over the question of Broadwell’s attire, referencing her “usually tight shirts and pants” and suggesting that she was “seemingly immune to the notion of modesty.”
The woman in the affair is portrayed as a corrupting influence who “appeared willing to take full advantage” of Petraeus’s trust, while the general simply “let his guard down.”
So let me get this straight. Petraeus, one of the most powerful men on the planet, invites a woman to accompany him all over the globe — inviting her on his private plane, allowing her unprecedented access.
He then apparently has consensual (albeit adulterous) sex with said woman. And the best we can do is suggest that he’s a virtuous warrior and she’s a corrupting whore?
The man who led America’s war-fighting effort in the Near East and chiefed our most important espionage agency was in fact a vulnerable naif, who couldn’t resist the charms of a wily admirer?
It is, not to put too fine a point on it adolescent, sexist and puerile.
There are, of course, some legitimate questions to be asked here. Did Petraeus or his mistress(es) violate any laws or betray any national security rules?
Did he lie to the oversight panels that are charged with making sure that the nation’s top security officials aren’t vulnerable to blackmail and other skulduggery?
What’s not legitimate is to suggest that this is a tale out of the Old Testament, in which a virtuous and principled man was brought low by a woman of ill-repute.
I couldn’t care less about Benghazi. As Rumsfeld once said, “Stuff happens.”
I couldn’t care less about Petraeus.
I do care there are two obvious idiots making a big deal out of this stuff – McCain and Graham.
Get over it. Obama won and people die.
As far as people dying, I do care about the thousands killed and injured in two stupid wars. But I guess ambassadors are more important than the troops.
And let’s not forget that taxes were lowered when they should have been raised to fight those two stupid wars.
Benghazi was ignored by the media? Maybe we utilize different media outlets, Arlo, as I read about it in various newspapers, saw coverage on the evening news for several nights continuously on all the network and cable outlets, here on NCPR, and on the News Hours on PBS. Is it possible you’re confusing media coverage with a media witch hunt?
Arlo, I think if you look back on this blog you will find that I was sceptical about the party line on Benghazi from the start. But I think that in most cases the story ends up being stuff happens fast and unpredictably very rarely is anyone able to influence events in a predictable way which is necessary for a conspiracy to work. And people usually can’t keep their mouths shut. Even Navy Seal Team 6 has guys who will tell all in spite of legal contracts to prevent them from doing so.
Aren’t Ambassadors Historically, symbolically, serving in the perpetually possible sacrificial lamb kind of position?
are we astonished that an Embassy of ours in the Middle East was attacked? (maybe we’ve crippled the Taliban into “local” missions for the time being?)
Unfortunately, they, (Ambassadors) sleep with the sword of damocles over their head and they know it.
I think Benghazi was certainly a screw up where people died in a dangerous place who probably did not need to die if people had done what they were supposed to do with great efficiency. It was also a screw up when Pat Tillman died, and likely numerous other brave men and women who died by the screw ups of a large military covering its own ass, the coverup in these these cases was worse than the original screw ups, which is usually the case.
But in the grand scheme of things, this is what happens. It would happen less if we were not always running around the globe involved in foreign entanglements and occupations however.
I mean why would we support this general who was an expert at occupying and putting down people who are against occupying forces? Why is Obama up there lauding him? I guess Nixon backed his generals also when they gave the body counts as measures of success.
I mean Move On did have their add, “petraus why did you betray us?” Have not heard from them much lately on this issue….
The Mongols were very protective of ambassadors. Across most of Asia tribal leaders, kings, shahs knew that the Mongols would slaughter you if you killed a Mongol ambassador. When the Mongols moved into eastern Europe there were many princes who found out the hard way that you don’t mess with the Mongols diplomatic staff.
By the way, the Taliban don’t really operate outside of the region of Afghanistan. Never have. The reason to invade Afghanistan wasn’t supposed to be to get rid of the Taliban. The reason was to get al Qaeda and bin Laden. The Taliban were ousted because they wouldn’t hand bin Laden over on George Bush’s timetable. We will never know, but there was a chance in 2001 or 2002 that good diplomatic skills might have been used to get the Taliban to turn Osama over without spilling any American blood. The Taliban at the time were strongly influenced by Pakistan and as our ally we should have been able to get them to put pressure on the Afghan Taliban.
So, then none of you has any issue with our gov’t watching an American consulate being attacked in real time, for 7 hours, and even though help is less than an hour away, it’s just fine that the “stand down’ order was given that resulted in 4 Americans dying? My god, and the Democrats say the right wing are heartless bas%%%s? What kind of animals are you? “Stuff happens”? If “stuff happens” it must be it’s okay when some jerk opens fire at a theater or commits a mass killing at a school or blows up a federal building or when some Moslems hijack some aircraft and fly them into buildings. Listen to what you are saying, it’s disgraceful at best. What the hell is the matter with you people?
I think you are jumping to conclusions about things you don’t have enough information on. You’re also saying some not very nice stuff about some of us which doesn’t seem to be supported by facts.
Yeah but arlo all of those things did happen, so it proves my point that stuff happens. Like I said if we were not the modern Romans running around involved in and occupying every freaking corner of the globe, we might have less of these problems. I don’t know what happened in Libya, but its not like anyone wanted it to happen it was likely a massive screw up which is not good but not totally intentional either. The military, the state department, the CIA, they are all essentially “political” organizations they are the government and they will do stupid, prideful and political things to cover their butts and to advance their careers. But that is life, we can mitigate these things by not being a modern empire.
Knuckle is right, the point was to get Bin Laden, not to add the 51st state, Afghanistan. So its time to go, it was time to go 9 years ago. Frankly we should go back to our old allies the Northern alliance and support them in a civil war to get the place under real control by the citizens.