This doesn't make sense

This doesn't make sense

I don't get it.

I don't get why a person's actions/behaviour/hobbies/foibles should take precedence when determining whether (s)he should retain a job for which (s)he has proven competency.

This has bugged me for a very long time, but this week's news stories about General David Petraeus and now, General John Allen are just plain STUPID.

My anger has been simmering for decades...

It started with Pete Rose.  Here's an athlete that worked his ass off to become amazingly talented at what he does.  He still holds many records.  Despite all these accomplishment, you won't EVER find him in the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Why?  Because he was a gambler.  After years of denials, he finally admitted that he bet on his own team to WIN every game when he managed them.

My question is this:  why would such a talented athlete, who excelled in his chosen sport, be denied the honour of lifetime recognition for his records, just because he happened to have a bad habit?  Nobody has every accused him of cheating, or failing to do his job well!

Tiger Woods is another example of an amazing talent who has been vilified because of marital indiscretion.  Should he have cheated on his wife?  Of course not!  Does that make him less likeable as a person?  Most definitely.  Should he be regarded as a pariah in golfing circles?  In my opinion, absolutely not.  He's a remarkable athlete who follows the rules of the game.  That's all that should be expected of him.

In contrast to this, there are people who have accomplished amazing feats in sports while under the influence of performance-enhancing substances.  Some have paid the price (like cyclist Lance Armstrong and pitcher Roger Clemens).  Others, like home run kings Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa have either received slaps on the wrist, or no punishments at all, while they continue to bask in the glory of surpassing the home run records of Babe Ruth and Roger Maris.  It's too early to know whether they will be denied entrance to the Baseball Hall of Fame; but I do know that their records have NOT been nullified (as were the Tour de France wins by Lance Armstrong).

So, that brings me to the news of the day.  General Petraeus, who single-handedly came up with the strategies that allowed the U.S. to gain the upper hand in Iraq before gracefully exiting and set the framework for similar strategy in Afghanistan was rewarded for this military genius with the position of CIA director.  Now, he felt compelled to offer his resignation because of an affair!  Offering to resign was the right thing to do.  However, President Obama did the wrong thing by accepting the resignation.

Let's examine this closely.  As head of the CIA, having an affair is certainly a potential security issue.  Imagine the CIA director being coerced into doing something compromising to US interests, due to the threat of having his affair exposed.  Yes, that would be bad.  But now, the affair is common knowledge.  It's out in the open, where it can't be held against him.  With the threat of blackmail now gone, what is the benefit of letting such a talented man step down from this important position?

Some say that the fallout from this affair will forever tarnish his legacy.  Many point out that his possible aspirations to run for president have been dashed.  That may be so, and frankly, I'm not sure I'd want to elect a leader that shows such indiscretion.  But here's a man who has been doing a formidable job as CIA Director and now, he's been unceremoniously dumped.

The trouble with people is that we're human.  And humans have lapses in judgement that can be quite embarrassing.  In my opinion, the punishment meted out to General Petraeus for his lapse in judgement is too stiff for the crime.

I think he should be reinstated as CIA Director (or engaged in the role of adviser) and allowed to continue the work he's done to improve the performance of the military and intelligence communities.