DangerousGame: Rise & Fall of David Petraeus
by PETER FARMER November 16, 2012
“In electing to serve Obama, hemay have finally ventured too close to the flame”
"Associatewith men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better tobe alone than in bad company."George Washington
"Keep yourindiscretions a hundred miles from the flagpole" ~ military aphorism
On November 9th, DavidH. Petraeus, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), announcedhis resignation subsequent to the disclosure that he had carried on a lengthyextra-marital affair with author and U.S. Army Reserve officer Paula Broadwell.Although Petraeus claims to have ended the affair in August 2012, it eruptedinto a public scandal when incriminating e-mails were made public following aninvestigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Broadwell, whomistook Petraeus family friend Jill Kelley as a romantic rival, had written aseries of threatening e-mails to Kelley, warning her to stay away fromPetraeus. Kelley forwarded the messages to the FBI.
While events are stillunfolding, as of 14 November, it has come to light that Broadwell was givenaccess to highly-sensitive classified information by Petraeus, and that some ofit was found in her possession. The curtain appears set to fall on one ofthe most-celebrated military and public service careers of the last quartercentury.
David Petraeus is notthe first powerful and influential man to have an ill-advised affair, nor willhe be the last. This article will not concern itself with those matters withinthe Petraeus family that should rightly remain private; however, because ofPetraeus' former position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI)- it is imperative that his actions be examined in the light of nationalsecurity. There is no way to sugarcoat it: Petraeus is guilty of extremely poorjudgment, perhaps even criminal negligence. To some, that verdict may seemunduly harsh, but there are sound reasons for it.
Prior tocommissioning, all military officers are subject to a strict and very thoroughbackground investigation. Once on duty, an officer is subject to numerousregulations and directives governing his behavior, access to classifiedinformation, and when/how he may communicate about it. These measures becomeprogressively more draconian as an officer rises in rank and takes onever-more-sensitive duties and has access to high-level classified information.There is nothing at present to suggest that Petraeus violated securityprotocols during his long career as an army officer. However, when Petraeusmoved over to the CIA as Director, the stakes were raised considerably. The DCImust be an individual of unimpeachable character and moral rectitude - andPetraeus failed to meet that standard.
Even thelowest-ranking intelligence officer must be alert to the possibly of beingcompromised via a personal relationship, especially a romantic liaison. Upon beingapproached in such a manner, that officer must ask himself if he is beingtargeted by a foreign intelligence operative or other agent. The so-called"honey trap" - using sexual allure to ensnare a targeted operative -is one of the oldest and most-effective techniques known to espionage. Paranoiais not normally a desirable quality in day-to-day relations between humanbeings, but it is imperative in a high-level intelligence operative who wishesto survive and thrive in a business where knowing who to trust can make thedifference between success and failure and sometimes life and death.
As the most-seniormember of the CIA, Petraeus should have been more suspicious of Broadwell'sinterest.It boggles the mind that he, a recently-retired four-star general and holder ofa Ph.D. in international relations, would be so blind to the vulnerability ofhis position. The fact that Paula Broadwell was a fellow army officer shouldhave been immaterial; having such a background would be perfect cover for anoperative working to penetrate the CIA or compromise Petraeus himself. A higherstandard of behavior must be demanded of a man in his position. Sex does indeedmake men crazy, it appears.
Looking at the largerpicture, it is perhaps unsurprising that General Petraeus has come to such aninglorious end. Despite his enviable record and accomplishments, he was guiltyof the elemental sin of hubris, and also of poor judgment in his choice ofcolleagues. Colloquially speaking, if one lies down with dogs, one shouldexpect to get up with fleas... and that is precisely what has happened.
Since his days at WestPoint, Petraeus has been known as a soldier in a hurry, a man with "starsin his future." Since rocketing to fame as George W. Bush's point man inIraq, Petraeus has managed to successfully walk the tightrope between careerismand being a "soldier's soldier." An intensely ambitious man, Petraeushas never shied away from publicity; nor has he ever feared taking risks. Aftergaining renown as the architect of Bush's "surge" strategy in Iraq,Petraeus was ideally-positioned for an eventual entry into politics if he sochose.
However, in electingto serve Obama, he may have finally ventured too close to the flame and gottenburned.
Much-celebrated incertain military and national security circles for driving the new Army/MarineCorps counter-insurgency (COIN) doctrine, Petraeus' theories have not held upnearly as well in combat as in the briefing room; critics charge that his COINprogram and the restrictive rules of engagement under which our forces fight isgetting good men killed to no purpose. Strategically, his COIN doctrine hasproven to be a costly and bloody failure. Critics have also charged Petraeus of"going native" vis-Ã -vis Islam, as when he seemed more concernedabout the "Holy Koran" and handling it with gloves, than he did aboutfreedom of speech or the Bibles his Afghanistan command ordered burned.
Having left the armyin 2011, Petraeus is off the hook for that now, but serving as DCI hasn'tsheltered him from politics - or the "tender mercies" of his bosses.Having squeezed everything useful from him, Obama and company now feel nocompunction about throwing him to the wolves. Petraeus sealed his fate when hedeclined to provide political cover for his bosses over the Benghazi attacksthat claimed four U.S. lives, and by denying CIA culpability in the failure tosend military/agency assets to rescue the beleaguered embassy. Petraeus'indiscretion was known within the administration well-before the election, butit was held in reserve by his adversaries as a trump card to play against himwhen the time was right. Late in the game, Petraeus modified his positionin an attempt to keep his job, but by then, he was already being measured forthe drop.
There are manyunanswered questions about the scandal. Was Petraeus' affair with Paula Broadwellsimply a matter of chance, or was he the victim of a carefully-orchestratedtakedown by party or parties unknown? Did the White House set up Petraeus as away of neutralizing a would-be political opponent? Is Petraeus being punishedfor failing to toe the administration line on Benghazi? Does Broadwell work fora foreign government or interest?
Why didGeneral Petraeus decide to serve under Obama in the first place? That is thequestion that perplexes this writer. There has been no president/commanderin chief in our nation's history as hostile to the traditions and values of themilitary as Obama, nor has there been a leader as lawless and lacking in honor- yet Petraeus seemed to believe that he could serve such a man without gettingdirt on his hands eventually. Time has proven this hope to be a vain one.Perhaps he hoped that, by remaining on duty, he could somehow protect his menand spare them some of the hardships to come. There may be other reasons as yetunknown. Only Petraeus himself knows the answers to these questions.
As unfortunate as thisaffair has proven to be for Petraeus and his family personally, the realtragedy lies in the fact that whatever credibility and moral authority DavidPetraeus once possessed as a critic of Obama is severely-damaged if not destroyed. If he is calledbefore Congress to testify about the events in Benghazi, he will do from aposition of political and personal weakness - which is precisely the outcomewished for by the White House and its allies. As for Obama and his advisors,their neo-Stalinist purge of the military continues apace as they eliminateideological and political enemies one-by-one, and replace them withmore-compliant individuals.
General Stanley A. McChrystalUSA (ret)
In retirement, Petraeus now joins formercolleague Stanley McChrystal, another general fallen from official grace.Having been stabbed in the back by their boss, perhaps they will now becomethe critics of Obama the republic needs them to be.
Should these men wishto redeem themselves, they are now ideally-positioned to do so as privatecitizens free to speak their minds about the danger to the republic posed byObama and his supporters. Here's hoping that both men seize the opportunityto do so in as public and forthright a manner as possible.
Copyright 2012 PeterFarmer
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder