By now, you’ve no doubt read about Gen. Petraeus‘ resignation as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). And, you’ve no doubt read about how this resignation came to be. I’m not inciting conspiracy, but something about this situation doesn’t feel right to me — particularly — the idea that Petraeus could be blackmailed.
The argument goes that it was important for Petraeus to resign because the information (affair) could be used to blackmail him. Okay, I hear that, but — the information is now public. Why does he have to resign? Why couldn’t the information have been made public and then Petraeus could have gone on as the Director of the CIA? Of course, this might not have been the most pleasant news conference or press release, but it would have allowed someone who is widely considered one of the smartest minds in Washington to continue in an integral position for the administration of the US.
I want to say that I’m not endorsing Petraeus’ actions (nor) am I endorsing extra-marital affairs. Though, it is worth noting that public officials having affairs (and resigning) is not new. One would think that they may learn from other’s past transgressions. Of course, expecting them to learn from other’s past transgressions is a bit unreasonable.
Circling back to my main point: why would someone have to resign if the information is public? In this particular instance, that information had to do with an extra-marital affair. Due to the culture of the US, this kind of transgression is just about unforgivable and as a result, requires that the leader resign. However, sex (and affairs) are seen much differently in other countries. That’s not to say that other countries would endorse extra-marital affairs, but it’s worth noting that had this happened in another country, the leader’s resignation would not even have come up in conversation.
[UPDATE: I wrote this post on Saturday afternoon, so there’s been some time for the story to develop and for others to opine. Here’s the closing paragraph from an article in The New Yorker posted on Sunday:
A final question, at least from my standpoint, is whether Petraeus had to resign at all. It appears that Clapper, who like Petraeus is a military man, saw it as a no-brainer. Within the military, there are rules about adultery. But within civilian life, should there be? The line of the day on the morning talk shows in Washington seemed to be that Petraeus did the “honorable” thing, or “he had to resign.” The old saw that, if he wasn’t squeaky clean, he could be subject to blackmail by his enemies, thus endangering national security, was mentioned again and again. To me, the whole Victorian shame game seems seriously outdated. Something like half the marriages in the country now end in divorce, and you can bet a great many of those involved extra-marital affairs. Is it desirable to bar such a large number of public servants from top jobs? It certainly seems fair to question Petraeus’s judgement, ethics, and moral fibre in this matter. But if infidelity wasn’t treated as career-threatening, its value to black-mailers would be much reduced (the fear of a spouse is another matter). In this instance, evidently, there were no crimes. So why again did this blow up as it has? Fans of thrillers, like me, are waiting for more answers.