Petraeus: A Burkean Take

In case you haven't heard already, one of the highest-ranking post-9/11 military officials had an extramarital affair.

Source unidentifiable 

     The news broke that ex-four-star-general-turned-CIA-director David Petraeus had an affair with his biographer last week. People asked, "HOW ON EARTH COULD SOMEONE SO FAMOUS AND POWERFUL DO SOMETHING SO STUPID?!" (As if this doesn't happen all the time.) The ex-general, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency when the scandal broke last week, was responsible for all foreign intelligence undertaken by the United States of America.  People even predicted that he would eventually run for President under the GOP ticket.

    And then more scandal broke: Petraeus' successor, Gen. John Allen, commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), sent inappropriate messages to the women who first brought an investigation to Petraeus' doorstep. Basically, Petraeus had an extramarital affair with his biographer; that biographer felt threatened by Petraeus' friend, Jill Kelly, who reported the biographer for sending her threatening emails; then General John Allen had inappropriate contact with Jill Kelly. To anyone who wants to have faith in high-up government/military persons, the scandal must be frustrating, because it leaves you little opportunity to do so (at this point, you might look like this).

     Then Professor LM mentioned Petraeus' name really briefly in lecture on Monday, and it got me thinking: what would Burke say concerning Petraeus' actions, and what would he suggest a government do in light of his infidelity? Burke says that institutions ought to be made up of a system of manners- chivalry- which enables its constituents to like its existence, indeed, to love it. He says however that when this chivalry is broken, other means will necessarily replace it to maintain power. What then, would Burke suggest Petraeus to do once his infidelity was discovered? 

     Firstly, I believe that Burke would consider Petraeus' actions to be wrong, especially in relation to its religious implications. However, I believe that Burke would have recommended Petraeus and/or other government officials to lie or use some other means to enable him to retain power at the Central Intelligence Agency. 
     
Burke says:

"But power, of some kind or other, will survive the shock in which manners and opinion perish; and it will find other and worse means for its support."

Of course, we live in a different location and age than Burke did, where democracy now rules-- Petraeus is no King, and he must answer to a higher power (the President/Congress). Still, Burke would suggest that the Institution (government) ought to take steps to secure its viability. And, perhaps, it did. While allegations suggest that the Executive Branch knew about the FBI probe months ago, nothing happened until the election was over. Did the government take steps to protect itself? A pre-election scandal would have hurt the Obama administration's chances of elections, but a post-election scandal of a cheating general wouldn't stick as much. 

     Of course, some also suggest that Petraeus was ousted in order to prevent him from testifying on the Benghazi attack (though Senators are still calling for him to do so). Though I think this conspiracy is unlikely, Burke would note that an attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the State Department after an unclear series of events is acceptable. 

     On a lighter and non-Burkean note to end this post, perhaps Petraeus just hated testifying before Congress so much that he agreed to leak his infidelity and to subsequently resign. At least, Petraeus didn't have a fun experience testifying in 2010 (begin watching at 00:38, where McCain's hilarious confusion occurs, onward-- noting that Petraeus is A-Okay):