Mesmerized would be a fitting word to characterize the American news media’s reaction to the recent fall from grace of former CIA director General David Petraeus.
Ever since the scandal involving the one-time Afghan commander’s extra marital tryst with his biographer broke earlier this month, politicians and pundits have been flocking to the airwaves to weigh in on the debacle.
But according to a recent article in The Washington Post by defence expert and historian Mark Perry, Petraeus is hardly the first celebrated American general to fall victim to his own character flaws. Some of the country’s most heralded military leaders have behaved badly, often behind closed doors, but occasionally in full view of the public.
Perry’s piece, entitled “Willful, Reckless and Boneheaded: A History of Four-Star Egos”, takes readers on a guided tour of the career-damaging hubris of some of history’s most legendary military geniuses.
For example, Perry describes how in the years before World War Two, a middle aged General Douglas MacArthur became romantically obsessed with a teenaged film star from the Philippines. When the general’s political enemies in Washington got wind of it, they leveraged the sordid details and quite nearly broke the future hero of the Pacific War.
Other military commanders to make Perry’s hall of shame include the vainglorious General Mark Clark who travelled with a posse of fawning journalists that he routinely cajoled to photograph him from his ‘good side’.
General George Marshall, architect of the total victory over the Axis, was supposedly a cold, impatient and inflexible man. Perry describes how he once sacked a senior officer assigned to an overseas post simply because the freshly minted commander needed time to go home and pack a suitcase.
Other generals, including Washington, Lee, Grant and Eisenhower also appear in Perry’s article.
Despite the story, The Post has hardly been piling on Petraeus.
The Beltway’s paper of record also ran a column this week lamenting the untimely professional demise the CIA director and noted war hero.
The piece by Dana Milbank is entitled “The Petraeus Affair Was No ‘Scandal’”. In it, the author compares the current imbroglio involving the general’s personal life with number recent Washington debacles involving elected officials that make a simple marital misstep seem absolutely tame in comparison.
Milbank’s argument is simple: the general did nothing illegal or professionally unethical and in no way jeopardized national security and as such he should not have resigned or been forced out. Check out the story here.
In terms of culture and national mood, the Petraeus Affair in America and the Profumo Affair before Swinging Sixties, have many similarities.
er to the citizens, or governed.
What the press thinks is just a side -idis
sorry ! second paragraph should read
Especially to the citizens and governed – what press thinks is just a side-dish
As unfortunate as the situation is, I would imagine that a lot of Americans might be fairly indifferent to the general’s personal situation. This likely wouldn’t be a scandal in a lot of other countries. That said, some observers (and perhaps rightly so) have pointed out that this matters only because it speaks to the man’s character and trustworthiness. It’s a compelling argument, but I don’t think I buy it.
BTW — thanks for sharing your thoughts!