Petraeus's inability to conceal his affair may be a blessing in disguise for America. He made three major mistakes that betray a lack of crucially important characteristics the head of the Central Intelligence Agency should have.
First, Petraeus could not resist a compromising affair despite all that was at stake: his career, his marriage, national security, his relationship with his two children, etc. In other words, he let his sex drive jeopardize everything that could possibly mean something to him. Any man with as much power as the head of the CIA should have mountains more self-control.
Second, Petraeus chose to associate with someone who demonstrated an abject failure to act discreetly. Apparently, Broadwell had started acting like "a shameless self-promoting prom queen," following Petraeus around and photo-bombing his pictures. She followed that up by sending those e-mails to Kelley which lead to them getting caught. The director of the CIA absolutely must be a better judge of character than that. He (or she!) must be able to tell who can keep a secret. If someone can't be discreet then you shouldn't be working with them, let alone having sex with them.
And third, Petraeus had little to no proficiency with computer-based espionage which is kind of a big deal now that ALL information is on computers. I mean, the man was the chief spook in America and he used a Gmail account to arrange his clandestine romance! That's not someone you want knowing state secrets.
Let's go over the losers and winners of this scandal:
Losers
- Foreign intelligence agencies: They missed an opportunity to blackmail an elite-level intelligence chief because they didn't clue in to Petraeus's affair first. Now some spy is back in Russia getting tortured by Putin for failing to exploit this American weakness.
- David Petraeus: Lost his job, wife, and high status. The best he can hope for now is a Cialis endorsement like Bob Dole had with Viagra where he talks about having the "energy" to keep up with a 40 year-old in his sixties <wink wink nod nod cash money>.
- The reputation for discretion of American Generals working in Afghanistan: Two years ago General Stanley McChrystal couldn't get his aides or himself to keep their mouth shut about how loony Joe Biden is when talking with journalists from noted hippie magazine Rolling Stone. Naturally this resulted in him losing his job. Petraeus ended up being named as McChrystal's replacement and now he's lost his job, too. And the guy who took over in Afghanistan when Petraeus moved on to the CIA is currently being investigated for romantic e-mails with the same Kelley who reported Broadwell's threats. What's with these high-level American military commanders failing to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour?
- The Pentagon Brain Trust: Petraeus was the Pentagon's wunderkind, attracting glowing praise from a broad swathe of commentators for restoring some level of respectability to American military efforts in the Middle East. But now the poster boy is gone and with him the only brain to run a semi-successful counter-insurgency campaign since armies could get away with mass genocide. The Peter Principle is the concept that your merit eventually causes you to get promoted to a job you can't handle. That may have happened here with Petraeus moving up the ladder until he was doing intelligence and not the military stuff he was best at, then having that blow up in his face when he couldn't handle the change in lifestyle and turning to an affair as consolation. At least his incompetence wasn't exploited by America's enemies (as far as we know).
- The FBI: Finally America's internecine institutional squabbles produced something of merit for once. I'm sure the agents at the FBI involved with the Petraeus investigation exchanged many a high-five over the fact that they were going to embarrass their archrival but the result was good for American even if the Bureau's motives may have been ulterior. The FBI leveraged their good fortune by waiting until election day to tell the White House about the impending scandal to curry favour with the President.
- Gmail: If it's good enough for the CIA, it's good enough for you. And there's no such thing as bad publicity.
- Whichever major arms producer hires Petraeus as a consultant: He can share insider information with his new employer about what the Pentagon is going to be looking to buy in the future and/or provide the latest on corporate counter-espionage techniques.
- The British tabloids: The UK media is so good at covering scandals, especially sex scandals. They beat a lot of American papers to the punch by gathering juicy "insider accounts" from hangers-on trashing the main actors in this mess then blending those quotes with dozens of photos of Petraeus and Broadwell smiling while sitting next to each other. You just know this is going over great with their readership at home since British people are so perverted.
- Paula Broadwell: Now sales of her Petraeus biography are going to go through the roof so that people can comb through it to look for double entendres, foreshadowing, and hidden meanings. "All In: The Education of David Petraeus" is still out in hardcover and available in paperback starting December 11, 2012, just in time to make the perfect Christmas gift for your mistress! And Broadwell was already retired from the army anyway. Maybe she knew what she was doing when she sent all those angry e-mails to Jill Kelley. After all, why send threatening e-mails to a potential "other woman" when you already are another woman? Isn't that just inviting scrutiny? Is the position of mistress that coveted that you need to stake out your ground even if it risks bringing a national sex scandal down on your heads? Methinks Harvard grads like Broadwell aren't that stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment