Random thoughts on David Petraeus sex scandal, moral standards of military and general public, et al...

The presidential election is one week old; the economy is still struggling to mend; fiscal cliff is upon us; Europe is still teetering; China economy looks wobbly (or bubbly, depending on your vantage point); we're still actively engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or, are we seriously winding down any time soon?).

And what is main media obsessed on right now?  The salacious scandal of General David Petraeus, the ex-military commander turns CIA chief turns disgraced middle-aged man with an extra-marital affair.

Everyone in general public, main media and the internet seems to know every unfolding details about this scandal, which started out with a glamorous military woman turns grad student, turns biographer of Petraeus.  The two of them must have thought they're being extra-cautious about the cover-up, creating private gmail accounts for their liaison and communications, supposedly thinking that these are anonymous and untraceable. Little did neither of them know that nothing on the web is truly anonymous for very long.  Patraeus must have had very little inkling of how law enforcement traces cyber crime.  How ironic, for a supposedly spy chief of CIA director.

Unfortunate for Patraeus, his undoing is really the poor choice of a crazy mistress who sent anonymous emails to another woman deemed as her rival to the Patraeus attention.  The harassed woman complained to some FBI agent, who brought the issue to the FBI cyber crime division, which then diligently followed up on it, just to turn up evidence of salacious details of the affair between Patraeus and his mistress.  Big ooops, indeed.

Apparently, the harassed woman is no innocent victim, having ensnared the attention of not only the FBI agent eager to send her his bare chest picture, but also another general, one General Allen. Talking about hubris, this harassed woman must be in the league of Comet Hale-Bopp. It's probably safe to say, that she's no innocent victim of the very jealous mistress of Patraeus, being such a name-dropper, social climber.


BUT, the scandal is not what I was intending to write about.  It's not really the scandal itself that caught my attention; rather, it's the reaction that is more interesting - in reflecting our lives and times in this contemporary age.

So, it was that, this morning I was listening to Tom Ashbrook's On Point on NPR, with the interview of an author, Tom Ricks, who wrote a book about generals over the years.  In relation to the matter at hand, some of the facts look to be disreputable.  Patraeus and Allen look to be highly effective generals, and are both very good at what they do in the military.  As per Ricks, given how effective they are as generals, we should give them a break on all these indiscretions, since effective leaders in the military are so hard to come by and our military force has become so complacent with ineffective leadership.  Afterall, according to his logic, even Dwight Eisenhower had had extra-marital affairs; and if we were to choose, he's sure no one would want to replace Eisenhower during the WWII war command.  If we are willing to cut Eisenhower some slack, why not Patraeus or Allen?

Most people who are understanding on the men (and the women) would sympathize that, while it's morally wrong, they are consenting adults, and the total private matters is none of the FBI's concerns. Afterall, divorce rates are at all time high in civilian population; why should the military be treated to a different (and much higher) moral standard?

Those who strike moral high grounds believe these men, who handle highly classified government secrets, have put themselves in compromising position, opening themselves to potentials of blackmails.  In fact, the FBI has since found classified documents on the mistress' computer, though it's unclear where she's got those files from.  The thinking goes, that if these generals have come clean about the affairs, they'll be blackmail-proof, and the marital issues would become private matters between the husband, the wife, and the mistress, and not the FBI or CIA.

These are probably the strongest arguments that I would grant them for.  There are others that are plain sexist (eg. Holly Patraeus should mind her appearance a bit better to keep her husband; or that, these mistresses are just attracted to men in power, much like Monica Lewinsky) are simply too weak or repulsive for me to even consider them. Granted that there are part truth in such statements, I would highly doubt that these men have strayed from their domestic life simply because their wives have gained 20 pounds over a period of 40 years.  These men (and women) want excitement in their life, and the affairs and even just the supposed flirtations, provide welcomed distractions from their mundane daily routines.  Could their wives (or husbands) have done anything to prevent that from happening, perhaps by, say, changing new bedroom costumes from Victoria Secrets every night?  I don't think so.  As the saying goes, they want new meat.

Still, while I was listening to the interview on On Point and the listeners' call-in, with arguments both for and against the "public lynching" of Patraeus and Allen, it's started me on some soul-searching.

If this has been in France or Italy, this kind of discussions probably would not even warrant media prints in the third page. Somehow, America in the 21st century is still remarkably self-righteous, believing themselves to be cut from cloth of higher moral fabric.  (Don't take my word for it: Just look at the multiple affairs and divorces of New Gingrich while he's on the hunt to the Lewinsky liaison during Bill Clinton impeachment, and you'll see why I'm so cynical about all those self-righteous, "religious" men, mainly in the GOP camp.)

Do we aspire our leaders to higher standards, or should we lower the standards, just so that our leaders can cross the bar? I'd rather not.  Still, I don't want to be the one to cast the first stone, even though I've never strayed from the path in my marriage. I can only imagine the tug-and-pull of sexual tension in the formative stage of an affair; and the flirtation must be fun (just ask General Allen, even though he insists that it's all innocent and he hasn't had sexual relationship with the harassed woman in question, it's really just a matter of time).

If we stray only in our heads, with some fantasy that is never acted upon, have we sinned? Where does the moral judgment begin, and end? Afterall, isn't that all Hollywood is about, when people watch movies and become enameled of movie stars as sex symbols?  I doubt there aren't that many women who never drool over George Clooney or Brad Pitt or the six-packs from other movie guys; same goes with praises from men to airheads like Megan Fox.

I do not want to judge, but somehow I have harbored hope against all hopes that the leaders - military leaders, no less - would be able to achieve what we mere mortals can't, ie. to succumb to our whims and fantasy. I would have hoped, that all the talk of military discipline would really mean and count for something in self discipline; or, is  all the ooh-rah's just for show? Is it really that bad (or unachievable, in modern times) for us to aspire our leaders to be the next Winston Churchill? Have we, as general public, scooped so low that they have given up hope that there will not be another Churchill, not only in terms of leadership, courage, wisdom, but also the moral fabrics?

I can only say, that I have not given up the hope for that. But one man after another, these crops of leaders, supposedly elites from West Point and all, have failed. I'm profoundly disappointed. I really am.  I have long given up hopes on politicians, but military elites are no better, apparently.  How sad.