randy_byers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
randy_byers) wrote2012-11-11 10:36 am
randy_byers) wrote2012-11-11 10:36 am
Entry tags:
Petraeus
Yesterday 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.
no subject
no subject