![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
randy_byersYesterday I read an article about Petraeus' resignation, and the little thing that jumped out at me was that in US military law, adultery is still a crime. Seems archaic, doesn't it? The article said that a retired general is unlikely to be tried for that crime, but it makes me wonder if any military personnel have been tried for adultery in recent history.
There's a lot of discussion going on about whether Petraeus has been knocked down by his enemies, either within the military or elsewhere in the government. There's a lot of talk about him as a self-promoter full of naked ambition. I guess the other thing that caught my eye in the article I read is that he applied for the job of head of the CIA when his path to further promotion within the military was blocked. What higher role did he want within the military? Who blocked him? I can't help but wonder if this is the final move in a game that started when he became the public face of Bush's policy in Iraq. It always seemed to me pretty tawdry (and fundamentally anti-American) that a Commander-in-Chief would use a general in such a political way, and I wonder if there weren't people in the military who felt it was tawdry for a general to allow himself to be used in that way.
Well, how the mighty are fallen. Something rather operatic about it all.
There's a lot of discussion going on about whether Petraeus has been knocked down by his enemies, either within the military or elsewhere in the government. There's a lot of talk about him as a self-promoter full of naked ambition. I guess the other thing that caught my eye in the article I read is that he applied for the job of head of the CIA when his path to further promotion within the military was blocked. What higher role did he want within the military? Who blocked him? I can't help but wonder if this is the final move in a game that started when he became the public face of Bush's policy in Iraq. It always seemed to me pretty tawdry (and fundamentally anti-American) that a Commander-in-Chief would use a general in such a political way, and I wonder if there weren't people in the military who felt it was tawdry for a general to allow himself to be used in that way.
Well, how the mighty are fallen. Something rather operatic about it all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 08:59 pm (UTC)There's a good article in The Atlantic, "General Failure", about how incompetent generalship goes unpunished and even gets promoted. It is a stark contrast with WW II where Marshall reassigned ineffective generals and had a fast track for promoting junior offices with the abilities we needed. In the GWOT, eventually things got so desperate that we had to resort to proven techniques for winning, but only after trying everything else first, and not without ill feelings.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-11 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 02:59 am (UTC)I think this might fall under the "pillow talk" fear, that someone with sensitive intelligence info might blab to their lover. (As someone said on Twitter, you can't make this stuff up: the woman he had the affair with was writing his biography and it is titled "All In" :-> )
no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 07:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 07:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 07:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 01:54 am (UTC)I read a few of Jone le Carre's Smiley books, back in the day, so I assume that nothing about Intelligence that is stated publicly is remotely accurate.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-12 07:14 am (UTC)