Only fools are crying over the fall of David Petraeus

The job of a real journalist is to be skeptical of establishment power. Sadly, many reporters rather love receiving cuddles from officials, generals and leaders. Michael Hastings is against all cuddles! His work has shown consistent distance and his recent book, The Operators, about the failed war in Afghanistan, is vital reading.

His latest piece, in Buzzfeed, is about the fall of David Petraeus:

The fraud that General David Petraeus perpetrated on America started many years before the general seduced Paula Broadwell, a lower-ranking officer 20 years his junior, after meeting her on a campus visit to Harvard.

More so than any other leading military figure, Petraeus’ entire philosophy has been based on hiding the truth, on deception, on building a false image. “Perception” is key, he wrote in his 1987 Princeton dissertation: “What policymakers believe to have taken place in any particular case is what matters — more than what actually occurred.”

Yes, it’s not what actually happens that matters — it’s what you can convince the public it thinks happened.

Until this weekend, Petraeus had been incredibly successful in making the public think he was a man of great integrity and honor, among other things. Most of the stories written about him fall under what we hacks in the media like to call “a blow job.” Vanity Fair. The New Yorker. The New York Times.The Washington Post. Time. Newsweek. In total, all the profiles, stage-managed and controlled by the Pentagon’s multimillion dollar public relations apparatus, built up an unrealistic and superhuman myth around the general that in the end did not do Petraeus or the public any favors. Ironically, despite all the media fellating, our esteemed and sex-obsessed press somehow missed the actual blow job.

Before I lay out the Petraeus counter-narrative — a narrative intentionally ignored by most of the Pentagon press and national security reporters, for reasons I’ll soon explain — let me say this about the man once known as King David, General Betray-Us, or P4, by his admirers, his enemies, and his fellow service members, respectively. He’s an impressive guy, a highly motivated individual, a world-class bullshit artist, a fitness addict, and a man who spent more time in shitty places over the past 10 years than almost any other American serving his or her country has. I’ve covered him for seven years now, and he’ll always have my respect and twisted admiration.

So it’s fair to say that P4 probably deserves something a little better than the public humiliation he’s about to endure. Sources who long feared him have already begun to leak salacious details; one told me this weekend that he took Broadwell along with him on a government-funded trip to Paris in July 2011. And questions about his role in the Benghazi debacle are also likely to deepen.

And Broadwell, too, is about to get slandered in a way no woman deserves. She’s the Pentagon’s Monica Lewinksy — and, despite Team Petraeus’ much advertised lip service to courage and integrity, it didn’t take long for his allies to swarm the press with anonymous quotes smearing the West Point graduate and married mother of two. That she wore “tight clothes,” as The Washington Post reported, or that she had her “claws in him.” In other words, how could Old Dave have resisted that slut’s charms?

Pretty shitty behavior, all around. As Petraeus ally and counterinsurgency scholar Dr. Andrew Exum might put it, stay classy!

But the warning signs about Petreaus’ core dishonesty have been around for years. Here’s a brief summary: We can start with the persistent questions critics have raised about his Bronze Star for Valor. Or, that in 2004, during the middle of a presidential election, Petraeus wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post supporting President Bush and saying that the Iraq policy was working. The policy wasn’t working, but Bush repaid the general’s political advocacy by giving him the top job in the war three years later.

There’s his war record in Iraq, starting when he headed up the Iraqi security force training program in 2004. He’s more or less skated on that, including all the weapons he lost, the insane corruption, and the fact that he essentially armed and trained what later became known as “Iraqi death squads.” On his final Iraq tour, during the so-called Surge, he pulled off what is perhaps the most impressive con job in recent American history. He convinced the entire Washington establishment that we won the war.

He did it by papering over what The Surge actually was: We took the Shiites’ side in a civil war, armed them to the teeth, and suckered the Sunnis into thinking we’d help them out too. It was a brutal enterprise — over 800 Americans died during The Surge, while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives during a sectarian conflict that Petraeus’ policies fueled. Then he popped smoke and left the members of the Sunni Awakening to fend for themselves. A journalist friend told me a story of an Awakening member, exiled in Amman, whom Petraeus personally assured he would never abandon. The former insurgent had a picture of the Petraeus on his wall, but was a little hurt that the general no longer returned his calls.

How did Petraeus get away with all this for so long? Well, his first affair — and one that matters so much more than the fact that he was sleeping with a female or two — was with the media.

(For the record: Who really cares whom P4 is sleeping with? The idea that the FBI was investigating his sex life says more about the FBI and our absurdsurveillance and national security state than it does about King David’s morality.)

Petraeus’ first biographer, former U.S. News and World Report reporter Linda Robinson, wrote a book about him, then went to CENTCOM to work for him. Yes — a so-called journalist published a book about him, then started getting a paycheck from him soon after. This went largely unremarked upon.

Another huge supporter was Tom Ricks, a former Washington Post journalist who found a second career as unofficial press agent for the general and his friends. Ricks is the ringleader of what I like to call “the media-military industrial complex,” setting the standard for its incestuous everyday corruption. He not only built Dave up, he facilitated the disastrous liaison between Broadwell and Petraeus. Ricks helped get Broadwell a literary agent, a six-figure book deal, and a publisher.

But Petraeus’ crash is more significant than the latest nonsense sex scandal. As President Obama says, our decade of war is coming to an end. The reputations of the men who were intimately involved in these years of foreign misadventure, where we tortured and supported torture, armed death squads, conducted nightly assassinations, killed innocents, and enabled corruption on an unbelievable scale, lie in tatters. McChrystal, Caldwell, and now Petraeus — the era of the celebrity general is over. Everyone is paying for their sins. (And before we should shed too many tears for the plight of King David and his men, remember, they’ll be taken care of with speaking fees and corporate board memberships, rewarded as instant millionaires by the same defense establishment they served so well.)

one comment
  • examinator

    There is little doubt that both McChrystal and David Petraeus are flawed men….then again, apart from me ;-) who isn't .The last perfect person, as legend has it, was nailed to a cross a couple of millennia ago by “the Americans” of their time, Curse their dirty little tunics!

    Let's also be clear DP isn't under a cloud for what Michael Hastings is claiming even though there are deep concerns publicly…. rather it is this http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/david
    and the possible consequences.

    MH's perspective on the issue is well out of context. His book makes a lot of "bad behaviour", arrogance, seeming indifference, to all but American interests and assumed rights. Yes McChrystal was rightly sacked but it is naive to the extreme to assume that this was sort of behaviour;
    There is evidence of actual legally defined US crime(s) .
    Nor is there enough evidence for conviction(s)
    and even if there was would it make any difference to foreign policy or US prosecution of wars ?
    In all three questions the answer is no or simply not enough.
    Keep in mind that the sword of LEGAL justice is quite specific in that it cut both ways i.e. if there is no law specifically making something illegal then the accused can't be guilty.
    We must differentiate between our moral sensibilities and the hard black letter of the Law.
    Ergo McChrystal's sacking was a PR issue. DP on the other hand was regarded to be a hero/ leader …because the US public like/want figureheads that they (falsely) assume that the people are exemplary as as people. And when reality comes home the people feel incensed/ betrayed that their hero exemplar simply isn't. The truth is no one ever is really! To me the real reason the exposed is being punished is that they didn't live up to public expectation. An expectation that is frankly impossible. In fact much of MH book isn't novel it really shows us what power is really like. I'd like $ for every time I've seen similar behaviour being displayed by Corporate Boards and Executives et sec. in the corporate world.
    As for the manipulation to get what one wants in policy or expenditures etc that takes place a squillion times a day. Every CEO, departmental head etc does it As Part of Their Job why else would high ranking military officers be so desirable to Military manufacturing Corps…. for the know HOW WHAT and WHO they can 'sell' to (read manipulate). The corporations are buying the skill, the same skills they've practised to get where they are.
    One doesn't get promoted any where with out these time/experienced gained skills.
    As I keep saying that it's the system, the system that ultimately the VOTERS either want or deserve by not changing the system. Human nature what it is 'it's always Somebody Else's fault/ Problem (SEP [“Hitchhikers' Guide”] )
    Finally we must be careful not to feel we've solved the problem with persecuting our scapegoat and then move on leaving the real problem unchanged. But I bet we/they do!