Petraeus Resignation

General David Petraeus did a fine job as a general. He did what he was supposed to do as a lifelong soldier. His predecessors did the very same thing when they were in charge of a "war". He led the surge in Iraq and became widely known for his leadership no matter what the eventual outcome of the military's efforts might be.
The only other "wars" we have been involved in without a declaration of war were in Korea and Vietnam. The wars of: 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish-American, WWI, and WWII were declared wars done in accordance with the constitution. Since WWII, our armed interventions, or police actions, or freedom movements, or whatever our military sojourns into foreign countries might be called, have been authorized by the use of the "War Powers Act". The constitution states that only the Congress has the power to levy wars, but does not limit how that might be accomplished - the intent was quite clear, but the brilliant Washington minds found a way to pass that power to the President with the War Powers Act and then in 1973 a "joint resolution of Congress". These empowered the President to act without further consent from the elected officials and blast away at will.
I'm really digressing into another subject, but shall return to Petraeus in a short.
Generals are supposed to win, but to win they have to wage war-that is the ultimate test of their dedication and leadership. How many peacetime generals have found their way into headlines, or news broadcasts, or can be remembered by the average person? In Korea, over 33,000 Americans died at a cost (in 1950's dollars) of over 54 billion. Vietnam left us with over 58,000 dead Americans and an expense (in 60's and 70's dollars) of over 111 billion dollars. How about the results-lives and dollars well spent? Please define the winners. Now, the Iraq "war" has cost some 4500 American lives along with over 30,000 seriously wounded with a price tag over a trillion dollars. Have the generals won? Has America won? The names of generals MacArthur, Westmoreland and Patraeus became famous as a result of those wars. Oh yeah, Bush, the one whose Presidential powers were used to start the Iraq "war" let us know we had won in Iraq in 2003 with his "Mission Accomplished" speech. All this leads to another blog subject such as, should Patton have marched onward, should Truman have allowed MacArthur to continue on his way, did Secretary of Defense McNamara lie and should Cheney have been believed about WMD's in Iraq? Who should control wars, generals or politicians?
General Petraeus did the same thing in Iraq as General Westmoreland in Vietnam. He asked for more troops. He was essentially the coach and he did what he was tasked to do and he did what generals want to do. The difference between a general and a football coach is the coach can't send 45 men onto the field against a team of 11 no matter who they might try to convince. Generals, with the support of the President, can win the battle. The war, however, seems to never end. Petraeus received more troops and he received great notoriety. He retired from the Army and was appointed head of the CIA. Now we begin to venture into some unknown territory. Is the CIA an intelligence organization or another branch of our military? Why would a general, accustomed to doing what generals do, lead something that is designed to provide intelligence? Once again, a subject for another writing.
All this leads to the subject of the resignation. The published reason is that the general had an extra-marital affair with his biographer. That's no doubt true, but how would that lead to some ultra-moral decision that he must resign? Certainly, there is no precedent for that even at the presidential level. Could it be that the attack in Benghazi, which left 4 Americans, including an Ambassador, dead might find a tainted trail leading to the CIA? Our President, in response to the attack, upheld the first story given the world by our government that the cause of the attack was the production of a movie offensive to Muslims. He said, "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence-none!". Now, either the President was involved in attempting to mislead the world or the President himself had been misled. What is the primary source of the "intelligence"? The CIA. Either way, there lies a host of questions about the organization under the leadership of Petraeus and numerous inquiries are underway to find out both what the CIA knew and what involvement the CIA has/had in Libya. History, whether it is learned quickly or decades from now, will surely show that just as McNamara lied about Vietnam and Colin Powell was misled into telling the world about the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, there is a story about the CIA and Libya that will become an embarrassment to our country. So, just as any wise general would do when he realizes an unstoppable missile is on its way to his location, he ducks and runs. Smart military strategy.
The whole point of this diatribe is simple. Somewhere, really high up in the anointed city, there is a truth that the outsiders, the American people, are not supposed to learn. The anointed ones, in their city of vast wisdom too complex for plain folks to understand, will spin this like a top.