(Jill Kelley – who apparently wrote to the FBI after receiving disturbing letters from Paula Broadwell)
(Paula Broadwell – the lover and acolyte who brought Petreaus down)
Regular readers will know that I adhere to the Ancient Greek view that hubris is the catalyst of most ills. Like Icarus, David Petraeus flew high, and considered himself immune from the concerns of lesser mortals.
Hubris - overweening pride – is a curse that seems to have affected and brought low many formerly great leaders, whether in business or politics. Perhaps being surrounded by acolytes and sycophants leads one to overestimate one’s importance.
The story of Petraeus – a four star general then head of the CIA and touted as a potential President of the US is a lesson in character, lust and judgement. What led Petraeus to taking substantial risks to conduct (as it seems) two affairs, one with Paula Broadwell and also with Jill Kelley is a mystery. Perhaps it was for some excitement - although his job offered excitement in spades.
We also do not know how the affair commenced – did Petraeus make the first move, or did an ambitious Broadwell strike first? It doesn’t really matter, but a surreptitious affair by a person with a top-level security clearance is always of concern because of the risk of the subject being blackmailed to preserve the secret. The affair helped Broadwell, by giving her extensive (and unprecedented) access to her subject and for marketing the book.
But there are a few other points that do not appear to have been addressed in the media.
First, why would a CIA director – who is supposed to play a behind-the-scenes role – want to cooperate in the production of such a biography? He should have rejected out of hand any request to discuss his life for the purposes of a biography, at least until he had retired.
Second, why did he choose to cooperate with this particular woman, who had written no previous book and had no experience in journalism?
Third, is it appropriate that US taxpayers’ resources be expended to help a researcher write a biography of someone like Petraeus? Did she pay her own way to Afghanistan, and for her personal security? It may be considered appropriate for taxpayer resources to be used to write a book on (say) the CIA, but not on a biography of one individual.
Fourth what of a security clearance? We know that she once (as a military officer) had a clearance. But that was years ago and probably lapsed. So, did the Government pay for another security clearance – just so she could write a biography on Petraeus? Or did they let an individual without a clearance have frequent access to the office of the director of the CIA at Langley and elsewhere?
Fifth, why did her university allow such a change to the PhD thesis she had proposed – to compare and contrast leadership in the US military? This changed to a biography of an individual which is next to useless when it comes to comparing and contrasting leadership styles.
In the end, hubris has struck again, ruining Petraeus and probably also Broadwell. But don’t expect Petraeus to be the last victim of hubris. Not many seem to learn the lesson – they get to a position where they think (perhaps subconsciously) that they are above the law; that the rules do not apply to them.
Well at least he has good taste in wimmin. These ladies are absolute babes!
Kruddler
13 Nov 12 at 8:33 am
There is no evidence that he had an affair with Mrs Kelly.
sdog
13 Nov 12 at 9:19 am
I bet there’s other women too if they looked a bit deeper.
candy
13 Nov 12 at 9:36 am
No photo of the 4th person? (Mrs. Petraeus)
Steve at the Pub
13 Nov 12 at 9:38 am
Yes, let’s publicly shame the victim.
sdog
13 Nov 12 at 9:40 am
Tim Blair did on his blog – and rather cruelly, I thought.
Fleeced
13 Nov 12 at 9:46 am
You mean subconsciously, Shirley? Unless you’re suggesting a Stilnox defence.
Fleeced
13 Nov 12 at 9:48 am
A completely untenable situation for the head of The Company to have placed himself. A disastrous event for the Petraeus and Broadwell families. He had to go. Strangely, Petraeus leaving Langley plays perfectly into the hands of one B. Obama, of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, because what General Petraeus might have had to say about the timeline of events in the stench of Benghazi, will now not come fully to light. Gee, you can be lucky sometimes, when the fickle hand of coincidental serendipity deals you an ace!
James in Melbourne
13 Nov 12 at 9:57 am
Yes. That was beneath him.
sdog
13 Nov 12 at 9:58 am
Its time for an Alpha Male to stand up and admit the truth…and that is…
Women throw themselves at us on a Daily basis. They are so frustrated (and often physically sickened) by living in a world full of Beta males that they literally attach themselves to us.
Powerful men throughout history have always had a Harem – its nature!
Max
13 Nov 12 at 10:40 am
‘There is no evidence that he had an affair with Mrs Kelly.’
Lighten up, princess.
Kruddler
13 Nov 12 at 10:51 am
After 10 years in the Stan we should be thankful he chose to root adult humans.
Infidel tiger
13 Nov 12 at 11:09 am
Not sure. I read on another blog that Petraeus will be subpoenaed to appear. As he has resigned he cannot present as head of the CIA, but he can be subpoenaed as former head of the CIA.
My opinion is he has not resigned to avoid testifying but that he held off resigning until after the election. Nothing to back it up, just a hunch.
dianeh
13 Nov 12 at 11:09 am
Petraeus agreed to the biography while he was in the Army, and there was nothing wrong or unusual in that. Petraeus himself has a PhD and values scholarship. Even when he was CO of the 101st Airborne, he was well known as a scholarly person.
Broadwell’s credentials were fine. Her approach was not so much journalism as scholarship. She was doing a Masters when she started, and is now in a PhD program.
In terms of transport and infrastructure support, the Army would have provided that, as they do to lots of journalists and others. There was nothing unusual there.
Tony Healy
13 Nov 12 at 11:10 am
One obvious lesson is if you do make it in life and warrant a biography don’t get an attractive member of the opposite sex to do it.
Other thing that amazes me about these sorts of people is how the hell do they find the time? You’d think they would be working 70 hour weeks.
It looks like affair commenced in Afghanistan before he became D/CIA but no excuse and obviously privy to maybe even more sensitive operational secrets at that time
Bit of tivia I see Mrs Petraeus’s father was also a 4 star general ( General Knowlton)
IS there a touch of the Gen Eisenhower and Kay Summersby here?
kingsley
13 Nov 12 at 11:20 am
It didn’t hurt Robert J Hawke.
.
13 Nov 12 at 11:24 am
It is not the sex or the actual act of adultery that I find offensive, it’s the traits of dishonesty and deception that surface in the person’s character.
“Character is much easier kept than recovered.”
Thomas Paine
“Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”
John Wooden
“Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”
Abraham Lincoln
Splatacrobat
13 Nov 12 at 11:28 am
If that was copied here more seats would be lost to the Trade Union Adulterers Party than at the next election.
Forester
13 Nov 12 at 11:31 am
I just don’t get it. Countless high-ranking men have had extra-marital affairs without the slightest effect on the performance of their work. Unless the woman is a Russian spy or similar, then Petraeus’ affair is a personal matter.
Even for Presidents, marital fidelity is irrelevant to performance. Nixon and Carter were completely faithful to their wives, Eisenhower and Clinton were not. Who were the better Presidents?
I would draw the line, though, at Kennedy, who was having it off with a Mafia moll and an East German spy (and many others) while in the White House.
braddles
13 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
Some serious hypocrisy here folks.
Petraeus is young enough to still want a bit of action. Who knows if Mrs Petraeus thinks the same?
Unless he gets it at home, is he supposed to remain celibate?
When is it OK for a man in his position to get a bit? Should a man refuse high office because it means he won’t be able to get any if his wife quits on him?
And the implication that you can’t get a bit without divulging all your secrets is the silliest thing I’ve heard in a while.
I feel sorry for the guy. He did nothing wrong. How was he to know Broadwell would turn into a nutter and send out venomous emails to a presumed rival (who it seems wasn’t one anyway).
DavidLeyonhjelm
13 Nov 12 at 12:36 pm
Or, indeed, George S Patton and his incestuous affair with his niece, Jean Gordon. A long-term sexual liaison which began long before Gordon became an adult – which gives a whole new meaning to Patton’s nick-name, ”Old Blood ‘N Guts”.
Odd to think of a gifted tactical commander such as Patton as a paed0phile, but there it is.
But the reality is that, throughout history, there has been a certain type of inadequate personality (both male & female) which has been drawn to military figures of immense power and to which they would subjugate themselves unconditionally and Broadwell’s surrender is not exceptional – history is replete with examples.
Heimdall
13 Nov 12 at 12:43 pm
What a crock. It was only sex.
DavidLeyonhjelm
13 Nov 12 at 12:54 pm
Splat, well said.
tbh
13 Nov 12 at 12:54 pm
It comes down to the fact that Patraeus was married. If a man can lie to his wife (or vice versa) then he can lie to his friends.
FFS – he lied. What is so difficult about this?
Winston Smith
13 Nov 12 at 12:57 pm
That’s total speculation. I am aware of several relationships based on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, a concept Petraeus would have known well.
DavidLeyonhjelm
13 Nov 12 at 1:00 pm
Jean Gordon was his wife’s step-niece. Any relationship they might have had may have been “inappropriate,” but hardly “incestuous.”
sdog
13 Nov 12 at 1:04 pm
How is Bill’s Monica nowadays? With Hillary running for President will Bill behave himself. Or will he be Hillary’ President in charge of Vice?
stackja
13 Nov 12 at 1:19 pm
David, I find that attitude a little interesting, unless you’re taking the piss.
If the bloke is getting none at home, he should separate from his wife. Shacking up with the biographer after that wouldn’t be an issue.
Maybe he does have an open relationship though, who knows.
tbh
13 Nov 12 at 1:24 pm
So men and women in their nineties who don’t do it any more should separate? What planet are you on?
And he didn’t shack up with her.
Well you got the last bit right. Who knows what goes on in a marriage? There’s way too much hypocrisy surrounding this whole issue.
DavidLeyonhjelm
13 Nov 12 at 1:26 pm
So you are saying that if my Mrs and I aren’t getting our freak on any more and I fancy one of the women who work for me that it’s fair game?
tbh
13 Nov 12 at 1:37 pm
If one of them wants to break their vows and go start a sexual relationship with someone else, yes.
You’re an amoral freak.
sdog
13 Nov 12 at 1:39 pm
Other than the national security implications – put that one aside for a sec
Seriously – if you bought an airport novel with this many twists and turns, you would laugh out loud:
Link
There are an awful lot of ‘anonymous officials’ and ‘un-named sources’ going to town on this.
This one about the Weiner-gate FBI agent is so out there, I am suspicious it is just a pisstake at the WSJ’s expense.
Myrrdin Seren
13 Nov 12 at 1:53 pm
he would have said no to 20 – 30 others per year – once in a while one slips through the defenses.
Its easy to be “moral” when you dont have any options.
Max
13 Nov 12 at 1:56 pm
I wonder if this is the same reason Reggie was made to quit as Obama’s body man?
Infidel Tiger
13 Nov 12 at 1:56 pm
What a wacky bunch.
The Washington Insiders seem to be little better than trailor trash in suits.
Token
13 Nov 12 at 2:02 pm
I think the larger question really is whether David Petraeus actually shared CIA intelligence with Paula Broadwell that could have compromised lives or intelligence operations, though the affair is of interest on many levels too for non political reasons.
catnip
13 Nov 12 at 2:04 pm
No it’s not.
If he has a secret, he can be blackmailed.
jupes
13 Nov 12 at 2:15 pm
What a load of tosh.
Jean Gordon was 21.
jupes
13 Nov 12 at 2:19 pm
Sending pictures of himself shirtless at his age sounds a little obsessional about the woman.
candy
13 Nov 12 at 2:41 pm
Tribal sages worked out long ago that individual morality is the binding of group solidarity.
The alpha males must outwardly respect the reproductive rights of the theta and delta males, or else they will be abandoned on the battlefield, or even fragged.
Even if a little bit on the side does not appear to bother the troops, its the dishonesty and the breach of integrity that troubles senior and junior officers.
Jannie
13 Nov 12 at 2:50 pm
Why do left wing loons hate loopy old blood and guts?
Oh that’s right he called bullshit on the Soviet Union.
.
13 Nov 12 at 2:50 pm
Rational decision making and thought processes are impaired during any illicit behaviour.
In this case it’s the power of the pussy over common sense.
Splatacrobat
13 Nov 12 at 3:06 pm
Infidelity aside, I feel sorry for the poor bastard.
Lloyd
13 Nov 12 at 3:08 pm
Speaking of Monica….
nilk
13 Nov 12 at 3:13 pm
<"> fickle hand of coincidental serendipity”
Anne
13 Nov 12 at 3:13 pm
It is not the sex or the actual act of adultery that I find offensive, it’s the traits of dishonesty and deception that surface in the person’s character.
The former is the latter.
dover_beach
13 Nov 12 at 3:16 pm
Oops, something went screwy with my “quotes”. Catallaxy is hard.
My line should read either ‘of’ or omitted last word ‘proceeds’.
BTW Candy, is it Fleeced?
Anne
13 Nov 12 at 3:24 pm
“BTW Candy, is it Fleeced?”
No, Anne, but he’s certainly the sweet sexy type, isn’t he, however I must be discreet.
candy
13 Nov 12 at 3:28 pm
Oh, to go ON topic…
Petraeus is a true hero. He may not want to be President. He may think the Administration and politics is rank with corruption and want no part of it.
He’s kept Americans and the rest of us safe for decades.
At 60 he’s entitled to a bit of something gorgeous. Surely!
…and….don’t call me Shirley.
Anne
13 Nov 12 at 3:31 pm
“No, Anne, but he’s certainly the sweet sexy type, isn’t he, however I must be discreet.”. 3.28pm
Yeah, definitely cute but he has red hair. RED HAIR!!!!
Anne
13 Nov 12 at 3:39 pm
Broadwell’s mistake was to get too hung up one male, not counting her husband.
She’s in the age bracket when women can handle and crave multiple sexual partners, and enjoy men a lot younger and more virile than a 60yr old.
catnip
13 Nov 12 at 3:41 pm
Anne, I will admit that Broadwell is pretty hot (actually a bit more than that), but the General should have kept it zipped up. As others have pointed out, he could have been the target of blackmail due to this.
I admire his taste but not his judgement.
tbh
13 Nov 12 at 3:44 pm
Taste is irrelevant if judgment dictates – Nhut, can’t have any of that!
Anne
13 Nov 12 at 3:47 pm
Agreed
tbh
13 Nov 12 at 3:55 pm
Morality, hypocrisy and so on and so forth aside (about which I make no judgement), there are two issues worth exploring in any case like this.
1. Time management. Like many who read this blog, I have established and built up my own company. Before recently selling, I had over 100 employees in five offices across Asia. Along with my family commitments, this took all my time.
My question when these “scandals” arise is where the hell do people with senior management positions find the hours in the day to conduct secretive affairs? It’s not just the time for the odd bonk or two, but the text messaging, the emails, the planning, etc. I honestly don’t know how anybody could run an organisation (i.e., effectively manage people and business) and conduct a clandestine relationship.
My only conclusion is that if they have the time then they are not so important to the organisation.
2. Risking it all. In this day and age, it is almost a given that someone will discover any secret (sexual or otherwise). Lost phones, weak passwords, mistakenly forwarded emails, improperly erased hard drives, etc. will ensure information falls into the wrong hands. And as night follows day, that information will find its way online/into the media if a well known person is involved.
Everyone knows this. So why would a person of significant standing do something secretive that if discovered would certainly result in public humiliation, loss of status, money and respect?
These are not moral issues. They are about time and risk management. I’m genuinely interested in what people think about these things…
Hanyu
13 Nov 12 at 3:56 pm
Hanyu
Perhaps people are susceptible to very strong feelings at any time of their life? and despite the consequences they just do somethimg dumb, knowing its dumb, but just plain can’t help themselves.
candy
13 Nov 12 at 4:10 pm
I am an Alpha male and enjoy a high degree of personal autonomy.
Max
13 Nov 12 at 4:11 pm
Ha ha, Hanyu, sounds like you’re looking for tips on how…
Seriously though, at the risk of hogging this thread, I know a bit about these things and I can tell you that even men who have reached the upper echelons of their careers don’t work 24 hours a day. They MAKE time for what’s important.
That’s my point. At 60, and with prostate cancer, he may well be thinking – I’ve devoted my whole life to duty, family and country, I’d really like a slice of pie before I die!
The prostate cancer makes him even more impressive in my view.
Anne
13 Nov 12 at 4:19 pm
Um Hanyu, chances are some of your team were playing up when you and their spouses were not watching.
You may think they are working on your latest project, but half of the time the most work oriented sites they visit would be Catallaxy and Dilbert (Still, both good inspirations for managerial strategy).
Jannie
13 Nov 12 at 5:01 pm
As I said before the mind bending allure of the bearded clam is a powerful thing with men (except if your Slippery Pete of course).
Splatacrobat
13 Nov 12 at 5:08 pm
Oh good grief.
sdog
13 Nov 12 at 5:25 pm
This FBI shit reeks of J Edgar Hoover. “Inappropriate emails”.
Fuck me, consenting adults.
.
13 Nov 12 at 6:22 pm
It is quite remarkable that the Democrat president goes all puritanical about infidelity now. Some would say the coincidence is remarkable.
Token
13 Nov 12 at 7:49 pm
‘Why did her university allow…’
American colleges are a joke. American taxpayers are being ripped off. And we can see the result of mass education in the narrowness of public discourse. We should be thankful that some diversity is still possible in the British system, still filtering into our own increasingly americanised one.
one old bruce
13 Nov 12 at 7:54 pm
Hanyu, a related question to yours, Obama seems to have a lot of time for golf etc. I get the impression that in the US there is an aristocratic prerogative among the civil service elite.
Also, this guy was high on dopamine feelings of ‘love’. He probably didn’t sleep much.
one old bruce
13 Nov 12 at 8:02 pm
Actually they aren’t, or at least some of them. A liberal arts under-grad is pretty tough in comparison to an Arts degree in oz
JC
13 Nov 12 at 8:06 pm
Law school or medical school is probably as tough in either country at the top institutions (Ivy League v Melb/Syd) but I wonder who wins the race to the bottom – some shitty liberal arts college in America or arts at UWS/Victoria Uni etc.
DC
14 Nov 12 at 12:09 am
That is interesting reading nilk.
The third comment (Anonymous Reader, Oct 11 at 1615) says:
I imagine Our Monica once simply brushed off wise counsel and learnt wisdom, if she bothered paying attention at school, much as some of the contributions here suggesting ” ’tis no big deal!”
Now rising 40, single and an emergent land whale she’s paying a hefty price for not educating herself and for not paying attention to simple successful touchstones.
(I’m reminded of Germaine Sneer when I read “The bill comes due a few years later” and of just how ugly one can appear after a lifetime flogging bitterness.)
On Petraeus – the regard earnt from a lifetime of proud achievement has just disappeared as a wisp of smoke, gone.
Splatacrobat has it right, I reckon, at 11:28 am:
and, now Petraeus is surrounded by broken stuff, he will revisit with a clear mind those things by which he was inspired, such as the admiration of people who really matter to him. He will discover the rude truth …
No job, no more “Sir” or “Your coffee is on your desk General”, no more zillion dollar decisions. On Monday he gets to make his own toast, eat it alone in silence, wash the dishes and watch Broadwell excuse herself on CNN News In Depth, describing him as a silly little man.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
14 Nov 12 at 12:12 am
candy, I’m sure you are correct. And in most cases the only damage is to the individuals and close family. It becomes a wider problem when the person who “can’t help themselves” is the head of the CIA, where it becomes a national security problem.
SteveC
14 Nov 12 at 12:18 am
Well, at least this has made a bit of room on the chronically overcrowded GOP bench come 2016.
Oh come on
14 Nov 12 at 1:59 am
Petraeus’s downfall is a terrible loss to the military community. Let’s not forget that he was the architect and manager of the operation that pulled the US’s chestnuts out of the Iraqi fire, under immense pressure from both sides of politics. He had possibly a decade of exemplary service left in him that the American polity will no longer be able to call upon. Tragic.
Oh come on
14 Nov 12 at 2:12 am
Petraeus is a nobody, lickspittal who deserves nothing but contempt. He saw a leftist film called the Battle of Algiers and stole the idea.
Scapula
14 Nov 12 at 2:17 am
Gold! Comedy gold!
Abu Chowdah
14 Nov 12 at 2:22 am
The army has been put in its place and if that’s Obamas only achievement it’s praiseworthy.
Scapula
14 Nov 12 at 2:38 am
And in most cases the only damage is to the individuals and close family.
No, the damage inflicted by marital and family breakdown in most cases goes beyond that felt by individuals and close family.
dover_beach
14 Nov 12 at 3:43 am
I think Scrappy just wet his pants. Can we get a clean-up in aisle 5?
sdog
14 Nov 12 at 3:46 am
It now seems that she didn’t even write the book – Vernon Loeb wrote it entirely!
Samuel J
14 Nov 12 at 11:26 pm
As probably the final bookend for this thread, Andrew Bolt puts a humorous take on the latest revelations in this soap opera.
The embedded link BoltA has starts with:
I grant you, from the perspective of the casual reader, this saga looks like ‘Carry on Up the Khyber’.
But imagine what is going through the minds of the ISAF troops, and the military families, faced with:
restrictive rules of engagement,
a timetable to withdrawal that no one wants to be the last to die for,
the constant risk of mines and booby traps ( IEDs ) PLUS regular green-on-blue attacks by our supposed Afghan allies,
walking through cultural conflicts in a harsh and unfriendly environment through every day ‘in theatre’ – where somehow it is the fault of ISAF troops if the locals pop their corks about every imagined sleight ( like frowning on the Pashtun predilection for batchas or dancing boys )
to find out the the general staff have apparently been writing themselves into story lines of ‘Desperate Military Housewives’ ?!
It is ongoing tragedy wrapped up in farce.
Myrrdin Seren
15 Nov 12 at 10:25 am