FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

In Bed With the CIA

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Another affair, another moral paroxysm.  Not that we should be concerned about extra renditions, torture, and subversive tactics – the CIA’s Director can resign, not because of a vicious policy, but because of a considerable lack of bed room judgment and horizontal collaboration.  This, speculate Washington insiders, is the end of David Petraeus’ public career.  “No man is indispensable,” writes an almost mournful John Barry, “but Petraeus’ brains, drive, and combination of military and political talents did give promise that the CIA would not be his last public office” (Daily Beast, Nov 11).

The casualty rate for a CIA director is a high one.  Richard Helms (1966-73) ran foul of the Nixon administration for perceived disloyalty; James Woolsey (1993-5) departed in light of a perceived reluctance in taking a stance against officers involved with the Soviet-Russian CIA mole Aldrich Ames.  John Deutsch’s lighting brief tenure (1995-6) ended after allegations of casual mishandling of sensitive material (Eurasia Review, Nov 11).

The sense of proportion about this is staggering, though there are feeble attempts to claim that this is something beyond “sex”, security beyond the bedroom.  As Michael Pearson of CNN (Nov 12) claims, “The scandal surrounding the decorated four-star Army general who once ran the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan involves questions of national security, politics and even the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.”

The news is being sexed, spiced, and gingered.  The participants are being deemed “security” leaks – Paula Broadwell, the suspected paramour, supposedly gave a compromising speech on the security complex of the Benghazi consulate.  She might have leaked material on Facebook. She might have even had, shock horror, access to the General’s email account.  One suspects, however, that the press corps and smut vultures are grasping at straws.  There is nothing more to tell, other than showing that such scandals can bring heads of vast and lethal government departments to heel.

A look at other historical events suggests that the comingling of body fluids and state information are considered fundamental parts of the espionage pursuit.  Britain had its Profumo affair in 1963, when the Secretary of State for War John Profumo did the walk with “party girl” Christine Keeler.  All was above board – till it came out that Keeler had also been dallying with senior naval attaché Yevgeny “Eugene” Ivanov of the Soviet Embassy in London.  When it came to a sex scandal involving officials of the South Korean consulate in Shanghai last year, a “probe” was immediately launched.  “Our probe,” claimed Kim Seok-min of the South Korean prime minister’s office, “showed it was a simple sex scandal caused by a lack of discipline among Korean diplomats.  It’s not an espionage case” (Zeenews, Mar 27, 2011).  A CIA chief, for his position, ticks all the boxes – smut, security and sundry.

America’s own apotheosis of sex in high office took place when the President erect, in the form of a careless and occasionally ruthless President Bill Clinton spilt his genetic material over a certain intern’s blue dress.  Conducting foreign policy with his fly open, his sexual antics dangerously combined with the infliction of war crimes on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan  – a vicious mix, if there ever was one.  Individuals such as Independent Counsel Ken Starr (don’t we miss those days?) preferred to examine Clinton’s record on mendacity.  Presumably, Starr thought that a person, when confronted about extra-marital pursuits in high office, would actually speak about them with angelic honestly.

Everything that is being written about this encounter reeks of smut and innuendo.  Consider CNN’s account.  “About four years ago, Paula Broadwell began her PhD dissertation on Gen. David Petraeus’ innovative leadership skills.”  Note the suggestive sniggers, the dirty grin and assumptions that follow. “Some of the interviews were done via e-mail.  Others were conducted as Broadwell occasionally ran with the physically fit four-star, including one with Petraeus and his team along the Potomac River in Washington.”  Rehearsed fitness regimes, followed by sly bonking, and chatter about deep matters of national security.  Instead of doing the decent thing and staying regular on claret, Petraeus was engaging in that fatuous thing called “exercise” – with an admiring intelligence analyst in tow.  Beware figures of authority who run.

The language itself of the entire episode easily moves into the realm of the lewd and lurid.  It seems that the chief of central intelligence was having his own emails monitored by the FBI, on suspicion that Broadwell might have had access to them. There are double entendres, morsels for the dirty mind. The language of the military – one of violence and subjugation – often lends itself to sexualised import.  “Broadwell told [Brooke] Baldwin [of CNN] that she embedded with Petraeus’ staff and troops in the field, sharing their hardships and risks.”

One of the problems here, it seems, was that Petraeus’ admirer could not keep her mouth shut, stroking the ego of her subject while no doubt gaining a sense of self-inflated confidence.  Those who seek retreat in the kingdom of the body tend to have little imagination outside it.  This was well manifested by Broadwell’s 60 push-ups on The Daily Show.  Green horned jealously eventually intervened, and Broadwell’s itchy fingers sent an assortment, it is claimed, of harassing emails to another woman “close” to Petraeus, since named Jill Kelley.  (Ah, another snigger.  Did the general get Kelley into the sack as well?)  The FBI, that august institution and not always friend of the CIA, decided to get their paws dirty after Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, received information from “an FBI employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower” (New York Times, Nov 11).

As hard as the sex scroungers will be looking, justifying their lust for lewdness by seeking a “security” breach, sex is all they will find.  That, and the extraordinary sense of disproportion that comes with its appraisal.  One can make agreements with the President on launching drone strikes that wipe out entire families in Waziristan.  Or – and the Taliban, take note – one can fall from grace after a sexual indiscretion in Freedom land. The moral in Washington, as it has been since the early days of the Republic: Make sure your fly is always done.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail