The CIA Affair

General David Petraeus admitted to having an affair.  He is an admitted adulterer who has failed to live up to his own standards and who has brought shame upon himself and embarrassment and pain to his wife and family.  He also was, by all accounts, a highly effective leader of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who has successfully led the organization in our on-going battle with the terrorists that threaten this nation.  There is little dispute that his leadership at the CIA improved its effectiveness in this fight.  He appears to have been the right man, in the right job, at the right time.  So I ask, is the fact that he is an admitted adulterer sufficient grounds to disqualify him to head the CIA.  In my view, it is not.

I am not condoning adultery.  I believe it is morally wrong to break a vow.  The vows taken in marriage are among the most serious (some would say sacred) vows one can make in one’s life.   The commitments to one and other made in marriage are the fundamental building blocks of family, and families are the building blocks of society at large.  I do not buy the adultery apologist’s argument that excuse or lesson the behavior because Paula Broadwell “threw herself at him”.  That is a specious argument that implies that men cannot control themselves in the face of temptation.  It is true that many men and women do succumb to what use to be called “temptation of the flesh” and violate their marital vows.  However, that does not make it right. My point is that while adultery is wrong, it is, in the end, primarily a violation against one’s spouse.  

As a society, we generally accept that adultery is a personal failing whose ramifications should largely be personal in nature.  In most jurisdictions, adultery has been decriminalized.  And, in those jurisdictions where adultery still is listed on a crime, it is almost never prosecuted.  The only real exception to that rule is the US military.  Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is still a crime that is routinely prosecuted.  However, as a former military member, I understand why this is.

 The emotional impact on a soldier who discovers their spouse has engaged in an adulterous relationship can poison to that soldier’s morale and mission effectiveness. When that spouse’s adultery is perpetrated with another member of the soldier’s military organization, the situation can have a devastating impact on a unit’s ability to function effectively. Similarly, the military criminalization of adultery aids in the enforcement of the prohibition of fraternization between individuals of differing rank.  Fraternization can have a serious impact on a military unit’s effectiveness by undermining the command relationship.  As a result, the vast majority of adultery charges in the military are in conjunction with fraternization charges against the same individuals.  And, because military justice is enforced by the command structure, the military does not tolerate adultery among its leaders. To do so would undermine the commander’s ability to punish soldiers for engaging in adulterous relationships. 

In this instance, General David Petraeus is retired.  Therefore, he no longer is in the position to enforce rules related to adultery.  His behavior, while inappropriate and hurtful, is really an offense against his spouse and not against society at large.  

One might take the position that if an individual will lie about adultery, they can’t be trusted not to lie about other issues.  Of all the arguments in favor of Petreaus leaving his post as director of the CIA, this is the most compelling.  However, I do not believe every lie is immediate grounds for dismissal.  The world is not that simple.  In my view, the untruths spoken to hide ones adultery must be considered in the context of the individual’s overall pattern of behavior at the time and throughout their lives.  By all accounts, David Petraeus’s adulterous affair was uncharacteristic of his general behavior throughout his life. The people that served with and for him have characterized him as an honorable man.  Furthermore, it appears that when confronted by the FBI, David Patreaus admitted his adultery instead of trying to hide under the cover of further deceit.   

I am willing to accept that David Patraeus is a flawed man.  However, his flaws were not sufficient to render him incapable of continuing to serve our nation.  I wish he had not been so hasty to resign and I feel that our nation is less safe without him at the helm of the CIA.