"A" is for Adultery

 

--One of West Virginia's finest bites the dust 

How are the mighty fallen,
and the weapons of war perished!
--Samuel 1:27 

I'm only human
Of flesh and blood I'm made
Human
Born to make mistakes 
--Human, Human League 

But you didn't have to cut me off 
Make out like it never happened
and that we were nothing 
And I don't even need your love 
But you treat me like a stranger 
and that feels so rough 
--Somebody That I Used to Know,
 Gotye
__________________

The latest big Army Horn Dog to fall -- Brig. General Jeffrey Sinclair (="General Sin clear"?) -- has found a safe place to land following his indiscreet dalliances. His wife submitted a statement read before the court today requesting a lenient penalty be dealt her husband, not just so she could retain the income to which she'd become accustomed, mind (ahem), and it seems some additional sympathetic testimony has turned the judge's heart

Adultery, which is a felony charge in the military, could have earned up to a 25-year sentence for Sinclair. By this yardstick, Ranger knew a lot of felons while serving in the Army.

He wonders why adultery is a felony in the military when it has been decriminalized in most states? In traditional English common law adultery was a felony but we have come a long way since the 1700's, for better or worse. (In the states which maintain adultery's criminality, it is a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The crime is rarely prosecuted, mainly used as evidence in divorce trials.)

Sinclair follows in the ignominious footprints of General David Petraeus (= "General Betray us"), and his military career is probably now over. It is understood when one enters the military that such disorder will not be brooked. But it does seem hypocritical to have permitted Generals Pershing, Eisenhower and Patton their mistresses in the past. Ditto the various philandering Commanders in Chief.

Perhaps society or the media was more discreet in their treatment of such stories in the past. Perhaps the immediacy of social media demands the public flaying of the once-mighty whose hubris leads them to think they can outrun the ever-watchful eyes. Or perhaps it is the general disillusionment with a military which has led us into numerous fiascoes which has caused it's leaders to lose their immunity from censure.

In any event, it does seem selectively damning to choose adultery as criminally prosecutable while other questionable military actions are granted immunity. This is not to argue for the excellence of extramarital sex, but perhaps the hypocrisy of discretionary punishment.

As gay Air Force Technical Sergeant and gender-rights crusader Leonard Matlovich had inscribed on his tombstone: "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one." Not that screwing around should be a medaled behavior; everyone knows the cost. But if we were truly talking morals, there is a lot more that goes on that ought to be prosecuted and is not.

For a simple start, it could be argued that killing and maiming in the service of discretionary wars is immoral.

General Betrayus

--We think he looks like Alfafa, 
though "Spanky" would be a better nickname

Tell me how this ends?
--David Petraeus

The power of example is very important
to people under stress
--General Sir John Hackett
_________________

[We at RangerAgainstWar find the scuttlebutt surrounding the General Petraeus incident interesting and provocative on many levels, and so will examine its implications over the next week.]

Today: Officers, not Gentlemen

Once upon a time there was a military academy called West Point, which held as its highest imperative their Honor Code, a road map for behavior suiting an officer and a gentleman, a man who would reflect the highest moral values of a brave new nation.

Many years later, after the United States failed to win its first two military actions in as many decades (Korea and Vietnam), there came a graduate who would endeavor to restore shine to his nation's military by being a part of  grand plan -- the redefinition of warfare, late-20th century-style.  This cadet, David Petraeus, would write his thesis explaining the new way of war for the United States (the Counterinsurgency) and he would go on to pen the titular FM 3-24 -- COIN -- which promised a new and winning outcome to foreign wars by applying the moral values of America to win far-flung hearts and minds of people less moral than we.

In its moral high dudgeon, the United States tromped off to find its success in the woman-demeaning Middle East, hoping to teach them to not stone women for adultery, for instance.  The now-General Petraeus staked his claim on the success of his doctrine and sought to redeem his country's esteem, but all the Brasso at his disposal could not remove the tarnish he himself would re-apply.

True, he did not (literally) stone a woman, but his adulterous behavior is not consonant with the morals he and his fellows would purport to be exporting. He recognized this (as a CIA report threatened to go public), and correctly removed himself from public office.  It is unknown if the affair began while he was still ISAF Commander; if so Petraeus was derelict and guilty of battlefield cowardice by espousing one set of values with his words and defiling them by his actions. If so, he may be subject to military charges.  Knowing, however, there are different spanks for different ranks.

How can a hypocrite win anyone's heart or mind?  Is it a greater good to export adultery or to disapprove of its punishment?  Should not the man tasked with imposing our belief system upon a foreign land not at least implement the best of that heritage in his personal conduct? Is it any wonder the U.S. is seen as morally bankrupt hypocrites?  Maybe there is a corroding worm that lives within our vaunted freedoms.  Maybe man is destined everywhere to corrupt the good he would do.  How did an honor code become so fuzzy?

If we have no fixed moral compass, how can we expect FM 3-24 with its "panoply" of pretty words to export the thing we cannot manage ourselves?  Stoning a woman for adultery is one step beyond adultery only because we value each human life.  However, seen from a more traditional perspective, all transgressions that threaten to unseat the authority of one's culture and jurisprudence are equally offensive.  Our Ten Commandments are not listed in hierarchical order; killing and adultery are both theological crimes.

Further, on the nuts and bolts level, how was Gen. Petraeus's dalliance financed?  Did our tax dollars finance his "bad decision"?

Counterinsurgency and morality should be complimentary concepts. Why could a major COIN war not produce a Four Star 0-10 that could decisively affect the outcome of the effort? [Generals McKiernan and McChrystal were previously both relieved of duty.] Will it be the moral, tactical or strategic deficiencies which will prove the greatest detractor from U.S. COIN policy? Why is the U.S. Army incapable of producing 0-10's capable of theatre Army command?

General Petraeus has now reached the tail end of his teleological inquiry.

Boring David

 We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend 
--Woman is the Nigger of the World, Yoko Ono 

Opposites attract 
It's physical 
Only logical 
--What's Love Got to do With It? 
Tina Turner 

Shame he's just this fallen idol 
Shattered like some broken glass 
Shame he's just this fallen idol 
Bits of paper for his past 
--Fallen Idol, The Tears

__________________

The saga of General Petraeus is neither surprising, novel, creative, nor sublime.  It is rather boring, sadly common and a mockery of the high-flown concepts like honor codes that supposedly guide the best of us.  It makes life a little more grotty.

It is also incompatible with membership in religious organizations, like Christianity (Though Christianity has a unique "Get of Jail Free" card which may be the loophole through which these "sinners" go; the idea will be developed in a later post.)  When we violate our bedrock codes at whim, what holds?

The story of Mr. Petraeus and his sex partner is nothing special in the pathetic annals of human behavior.  He and his wife will move on, as most people do, their lives a little more lackluster for wear, the weight of misery in the world ever-so-slightly re-weighted.  The sadly amusing thing to me is, religious people (as most Americans count themselves) have recourse to a rule book for good behavior, in this case: Thou shalt not commit adultery.  What would bite is if the good General issues a statement to the effect (as most upstanding people do) that his faith will bring him through this. No-- foul play: You are either All In, or you are out; do not invoke faith when you have forsaken it.

Reading the user comments following media coverage of the Petraeus story one sees the bifurcation in society.  Roughly half charge those who are disappointed in Mr. Petraeus with parochialism: "Everyone does it; get over it."  (There are permutations which alternately blame the wife for not being a pneumatic sex kitten and sympathize with his military life -- "It must get lonely".)  The other half hold up for the sanctity of marriage and the goodness of commitment, trust and all the other things that give comfort and safe harbor from life's storms

Count me with the latter group, parochial and seeking relationships as known quantities.  Not boring, my energy is not gotten from frenetic hook ups and "variety"; that drains me.  Looking at Petraeus or any man like him I think, what you have isn't very good.  Why the age-old impulse to take the swan dive?  Why do so few of us maintain something good? (Roll it back a few steps: Why do we not choose for the good at the get-go, groom it and revel in our good fortune?)

One answer is that The Good is different for all, despite the one-size fits all of religious or doctrinal creed. There are many ways to go in this world.  All that is required is that you make a choice, and that you honestly share that choice if you have a partner(s) running shotgun.  Immaculate honesty is the lubricant which best oils the wheels of any relationship.  

Having intimately known both behavioral styles (secretive versus direct, monogamous versus polygamous), the safe harbor, for me, is honesty.  Again, it all depends on your predilections and temperament.  If you need the hurricane and find the insane whirlwind stimulating, choose for it.  Or go be a deep-sea diver or drive race cars to satisfy your need for speed.  But the thing you do not get to do in good conscience is to take a lamb and behave like a wolf if you belong to a relational system based upon expectations of fealty.

When choosing for adultery your crime is betraying the others trust and rattling her belief system, nothing more, nothing less.  Your god is not surprised; he's already written you off as a sinner.  You have accomplished nothing rarefied or good.  Why not honestly go play in the shallow, crowded end of the pool, where there's fun aplenty and no entangling alliances?  The majority of people do not choose for the (openly) hedonic lifestyle because we have a sense that society would not long stand a majority who live by the creed, "More for me, and damn the rest."  What's good for you, if gotten at the others expense, is destructive.

We know eventually we'd get a stiletto in the back, so many of us make bargains, superficially making commitments that we do not intend to keep.  Those people keep a second and third book of accounts, thinking to hide something, because they have a sense of wrongdoing.  But the salvation for the rest of us is, their game eventually outs, maybe later than sooner, and wreckage will be the harvest.  But the marvelous thing about humans is their resiliency and ability to learn; the next wolf will be easier to spot.

An adjutant thought to this story is my disappointment in the media cabal over the last several years to convince us the marriage is passe, cheating, the norm.  While some of the studies upon which the latter assertion was predicated have been discredited, the stories persist and proliferate.  What is the agenda for downgrading these ideas which have allowed civil society to flourish?  Probably there is a political agenda, but that too is for another discussion.

Good luck to you, Mr. Petraeus.  I won't be looking at your or your lover's book.  And the wonder continues: When will we ever learn?

Warriors Collect Booty

--Rape of the Sabine Women,
Peter Paul Rubens

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! Yo!
--Fortunate Son,
Creedence Clearwater Revival

She poppin' she rollin', she rollin'
She climbin' that pole and
She trippin' she playin', she playin'
I'm not goin' nowhere girl, I'm stayin'
--I'm N Luv Wid a Stripper,
T Pain

You can't leave,
'cause your heart is there
But you can't stay,
'cause you been somewhere else!
--Family Affair,
Sly and the Family Stone
______________

The WPPA (West Point Protection Association) comes through again, rescuing Colonel James Johnson from the exploits of his johnson.

Colonel James H. Johnson III, former commander of the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade, has pled guilty to 15 charges, including bigamy, adultery and fraud, stemming from an extramarital affair with an Iraqi woman Johnson met while on deployment in 2005. For this he has been slapped smartly on the wrist with a $300,000 fine by a court martial presided over by five Colonels:

"He had faced possible decades in prison and dismissal from the Army as a maximum sentence. The panel of five colonels who presided over the court-martial . . . did not explain their decision"(Colonel found guilty of fraud, fined $300K).

He might have faced 54 years, a dismissal from the service, total forfeiture of pay and allowances and a fine . . . but we are talking a West Point graduate with a pedigree, here. Was Col. Johnson a war-fighter, a nation-builder, or a politico-military hybrid? Since hearts and minds were the mantra of the wars, can we really blame the Colonel for taking it to heart, and trying to nail a little Iraqi heart and mind for himself?

Why do we hold soldiers to a higher code of sexual conduct than that which apply to our political leaders? An officer is sworn to be a gentlemen, but what constitutes that designator? Does a gentlemen do the dirty work of using his body to invade and fuck nations, but may not use that same body to fuck another person? What about a warrior? Can a warrior be a gentleman, too, and can it be concurrent with his term of service?

Interesting that these same charges were leveled at the man currently being vetted for the ambassadorship of Iraq and few raise an eye. Brett McGurk committed adultery with Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon while posted in Iraq during George W. Bush's second term, with Chon trading sex for access to classified materials from McGurk. Yet McGurk is considered appropriate high-level State Department material, while Johnson's career has ended.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2012/06/14/2060411/us-army-col-found-guilty-of-fraud.html#storylink=cpRanger suggests double standards, and more importantly, a misunderstanding of a KEY TERM: Warrior. Warriors have a different ethos than do soldiers: They are NOT gentlemen; they DO collect booty. Warriors have historically taken concubines while on campaign. Warriors interbreed with captured females. They have always declared privileges denied the common man.

If we are truly warriors then let our warriors have concubines (or, "forest wives" -- "dessert wives" (?) -- as the Bielsky partisans took); such is the privilege of the warrior. If we are warriors, we must accept behavior that goes beyond the boundaries of soldierly conduct. Yes, bigamy and adultery are the accepted charges, and they are illegal behaviors in the U.S. -- but maybe warriors should get a pass?


Johnson is also charged with paying tens of thousands of dollars of contracts to his mistress's father for things that "were neither produced nor received." The panel also found him guilty of giving the family an Army cell phone on which they ran up more than $80,000 in charges. But all of these things are stuff that warriors do: They knock a little off the tops for themselves and their nearest and dearest, including their New Best Friends and her family.

It is more than a bit galling for Ranger to find himself effectively arguing for Johnson's behavior; clearly, his privilege of having a proxy marriage in Montana and house plans for his new honey is beyond the grasp of most ordinary fighting men. But he is using it to bring the question of warriorhood vs. soldiering to the fore.

Is warriorhood the devolution of soldiering? Until we decide the answers, it is best to keep our dicks under strict control.

After reasoning this out, a part of Ranger now secretly wishes he had been a "warrior", too (if we decide there will be no repercussions, that is.)