If you have not already done so, you may wish to read the
Introduction to Gnomica.
Wednesday 14 November 2012
Read gnomica 1-150 here!
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162
163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185
Since everybody else is writing and wringing hands about l’affaire Petraeus, I’ll join the jeremiads.
It’s a very, very old story – an old story about a guy who just can’t seem to keep it zipped. It’s the story (as noted in an article in yesterday’s [13 Nov 2012] Times) of concupiscent David getting rid of Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, so he can have her all to himself (2 Samuel 11). And it’s older than Homer’s Iliad and unzipped Paris (not exactly the Petraeus of his day, but close enough for government work!), and it shows up – in one shape-shifting form or another — everywhere in Greek Tragedy. Everywhere: in a nutshell – a high-octane hubris (ὕβρις) blinds the high-and-mighty to the appreciation that they too are not above but very much subject to society’s normative limitations that apply to all humans … and off the cliff they step.
And l’affaire Petraeus is an absolute classic!
Although I hold no brief for adultery, and in general certainly think it’s a very bad idea, I leave to others more pure than I the gratifying frissons of condemnatory moralizing. My interest in the matter here is the fall-out. Petraeus was not in the military (he was head of the C.I.A.) and thus apparently he did not with his adultery (criminally) violate any military laws. Again, while the head of an important federal agency probably should have better self-control and certainly better judgment, unless adultery is a crime where he formally lives, as a civilian he apparently broke no general laws either. By all accounts Petraeus was rock-solid from a strictly military point of view, an exemplary soldier who successfully accomplished the difficult missions with which he was tasked. Would he have been fired if he had not resigned? Did Clinton – another adulterous civilian who was head of a major federal agency as it were – resign or get fired for adultery back in the day? How about that other adulterous president, you know the one, FDR? Did that other highly competent adulterous general — Eisenhower?
Is the country better off because Petraeus no longer heads the C.I.A.? Do we all feel safer now? are we all safer now?
In the still evolving story I have not yet come across any evidence or even suspicion that his actions in any way have compromised the security of this country, and on the assumption that such continues to prove to be the case, let’s put a plug in it!
Some decades back we once did have a leader who came across as highly moralistic and no doubt was and who was not, I am sure, an adulterer except in his own heart. Does anybody want him – or someone like him — back to lead us again?
An effective leader may not exactly be someone we might want a Sunday School class to look up to as a model for emulation in terms of all his dealings, but do we really want a leader who is Mr. Nice Guy? It’s sad that Petraeus’ actions hurt people in his family and probably disappointed others who knew and admired him for any number of reasons, but is any of that really my concern? or yours?
As long as he did his job?
Did he fail his country in the tasks he was set?
Perhaps I’m in a small minority here, but I do have some vague recollection of something pretty good I once read (and have not forgotten) in John 8:7?