General demoted after affair and multiple sex partners - Air Force Generals play too!

[policemedic]

Your professional life used to be separate from your private life....but not in this PC world. The Colonel knew, when he started playing around, that the Army and DOD would hammer him if he became exposed and an embarrassment...but he did it anyway.

This.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

I do not for the life of me understand why this is even a debate. From bootcamp (or OCS) forward you raise your hand and volunteer.

You know the rules of the game and by enlisting or accepting a commission you agree to follow those rules.

You are told that certain behaviors are a no-go, whether you agree or disagree with the rules, you at least know them.

You are told that one of the reasons for not fucking around with another man's wife, or someone other than your own wife, is because it could cause you to be comprised by a foreign government, a domestic group, or even your best friend if he thinks it could benefit him somehow.

Knowing this, and still needing to get your weenie wet with someone other than your spouse , you do exactly what your are not supposed to do, with exact who you are not supposed to do it with.

You knowingly risk your career, your pension, your reputation, your relationships, your "name it". For some ass.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or Obama, or Trump, or any other fucked up reason. This has to do with the fact that we hold our military, and especially our military officers to a certain standard. If you don't like the standard, or the reasons for the standards...

quit.

 

[TLDR20]

I do not for the life of me understand why this is even a debate. From bootcamp (or OCS) forward you raise your hand and volunteer.

You know the rules of the game and by enlisting or accepting a commission you agree to follow those rules.

You are told that certain behaviors are a no-go, whether you agree or disagree with the rules, you at least know them.

You are told that one of the reasons for not fucking around with another man's wife, or someone other than your own wife, is because it could cause you to be comprised by a foreign government, a domestic group, or even your best friend if he thinks it could benefit him somehow.

Knowing this, and still needing to get your weenie wet with someone other than your spouse , you do exactly what your are not supposed to do, with exact who you are not supposed to do it with.

You knowingly risk your career, your pension, your reputation, your relationships, your "name it". For some ass.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or Obama, or Trump, or any other fucked up reason. This has to do with the fact that we hold our military, and especially our military officers to a certain standard. If you don't like the standard, or the reasons for the standards...

quit.

I agree and disagree. For reasons I have stated already. I think marital indiscretion is a personal al thing, but as I have also said can have a profound impact on a small unit.... I honestly don't know what I think. I am 50/50 here.

 

[CDG]

I do not for the life of me understand why this is even a debate. From bootcamp (or OCS) forward you raise your hand and volunteer.

You know the rules of the game and by enlisting or accepting a commission you agree to follow those rules.

You are told that certain behaviors are a no-go, whether you agree or disagree with the rules, you at least know them.

You are told that one of the reasons for not fucking around with another man's wife, or someone other than your own wife, is because it could cause you to be comprised by a foreign government, a domestic group, or even your best friend if he thinks it could benefit him somehow.

Knowing this, and still needing to get your weenie wet with someone other than your spouse , you do exactly what your are not supposed to do, with exact who you are not supposed to do it with.

You knowingly risk your career, your pension, your reputation, your relationships, your "name it". For some ass.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, or Obama, or Trump, or any other fucked up reason. This has to do with the fact that we hold our military, and especially our military officers to a certain standard. If you don't like the standard, or the reasons for the standards...

quit.

It's a debate because it should be a debate. Yeah, you know the rules. So what? That means the topic is forever closed to discussion? I don't like the standard, or the puritanical reason for it. I need to quit the military now? Give me a break. I know what you're told about why marital indiscretion is a bad thing. I'm calling bullshit and saying those reasons aren't valid in 2016. I don't know why you mentioned PC, POTUS, or PE Trump, as they have nothing to do with this conversation. The mantra of "we hold them to standards" is a bunch of horseshit. Because what's the standard, in reality? Don't rock the boat, and kiss the right rings. We attempt to force everyone to live to a certain morality, while ignoring issues that actually affect leadership, morale, retention, etc. If the military was so concerned about these so-called "standards", they would be worrying about actual issues. Not who gets their dick wet with who. Toxic, unqualified, etc are ignored, but god help you if you cheat on your wife.

@TLDR20 made some great points about it affecting a small team dynamic. True. I agree with that. But it's more akin to a personality conflict that can cause the dynamic to be strained as well. Maybe I voted for Trump and you voted for Hillary and we can't stand each other now. It's a team level issue though. Adultery should be a team level issue.

 

[Gunz]

I think adultry can effect leadership in a number of instances, especially an extended affair carried on locally, that is, where spouse and mistress are proximal...and continuation requires secrecy, deceit and the need to "cover one's tracks." There's a lot of stress and anxiety involved in that kind of entanglement and it could easily become a serious distraction or disruption in a person's normal flow.

Should it be punishable under the UCMJ? That's a tough question. There's merit in both sides of the argument. Perhaps only when there's some evidence of it having actually or directly interfered with your duties...like when your wife finds out and goes apeshit and shoots up regimental H.Q.

 

[RackMaster]

Don't shit in your own back yard or area code.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

The OP was about a general officer who was fucking around on his wife, tried to keep it hidden, and got busted for it. I believe this was the right decision because I am by default, wired as a rule-follower, and agree that a person with 'rank' could be convinced to make decisions out of the norm if they fear being caught or exposed. @TLDR20 brought up smaller units. I will concede that those units may have their own set of rules and moralities that those outside of such units would likely not understand or even agree with.

@CDG - you wrote:

Yes, I can see where it would make them vulnerable. Again, when has it ever happened? In this day and age, with the capabilities out there, they wouldn't even need to catch an actual affair. They could edit you into one and threaten anyways. I think that's a red herring argument.

My reply back to the bolded would be, "how would we, the general public ever know?" In the business world I have seen decisions made and one promotion given, because the CEO was banging his nanny. We all knew it, but someone took advantage of it. <very long story> During my time in the Marine Corps we ALL knew that one of the E-3 WM's (women Marine) was blowing the company Gunny. And we all knew that she avoided the shit duties because of it. Those are just two examples on a small scale, but they are very real. Imagine what a person could make happen if they had a "two star" in their pocket. You don't have to agree that these are valid concerns, but I think you are incorrect to dismiss them and refer to it them a red herring.

I would use General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell as a recent example. How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time

As part of the agreement, Petraeus admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave to Broadwell. The Justice Department said the information, if disclosed, could have caused “exceptionally grave damage.” Officials said the notebooks contained code words for secret intelligence programs, the identities of covert officers, and information about war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council.

It could be argued, and I would agree, that had he not been having sex with this woman (who was an Army Reserve Major at the time), he would not have electronically shared such information with her, and could very well still be Director or CIA.

 

[Etype]

Legally, ethically, and morally- those three words come up often.

Lucky for us, the UCMJ legally defines how we are expected to behave eithically and morally.

There are a lot of laws in the military and civilian world, some I agree with and some that I don't. Agree or disagree, they all remain punitive in nature.

 

[CDG]

The OP was about a general officer who was fucking around on his wife, tried to keep it hidden, and got busted for it. I believe this was the right decision because I am by default, wired as a rule-follower, and agree that a person with 'rank' could be convinced to make decisions out of the norm if they fear being caught or exposed. @TLDR20 brought up smaller units. I will concede that those units may have their own set of rules and moralities that those outside of such units would likely not understand or even agree with.

@CDG - you wrote:


My reply back to the bolded would be, "how would we, the general public ever know?" In the business world I have seen decisions made and one promotion given, because the CEO was banging his nanny. We all knew it, but someone took advantage of it. <very long story> During my time in the Marine Corps we ALL knew that one of the E-3 WM's (women Marine) was blowing the company Gunny. And we all knew that she avoided the shit duties because of it. Those are just two examples on a small scale, but they are very real. Imagine what a person could make happen if they had a "two star" in their pocket. You don't have to agree that these are valid concerns, but I think you are incorrect to dismiss them and refer to it them a red herring.

I would use General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell as a recent example. How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time

As part of the agreement, Petraeus admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave to Broadwell. The Justice Department said the information, if disclosed, could have caused “exceptionally grave damage.” Officials said the notebooks contained code words for secret intelligence programs, the identities of covert officers, and information about war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council.

It could be argued, and I would agree, that had he not been having sex with this woman (who was an Army Reserve Major at the time), he would not have electronically shared such information with her, and could very well still be Director or CIA.

You are conflating separate issues. An E-3 blowing the Gunny to get out of details is an entirely separate issue from affairs. Trading sex for promotions, getting out of work, extra duty, etc should be punished. Same as if a male Marine was paying the Gunny in cash for the same thing. It still has nothing to do with the act of having an affair. I said in earlier posts that other factors should be handled accordingly. GEN Petraeus is a great example. He should be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. He should not be prosecuted for having the affair. The two are separate issues. If the affair was a causal factor, so be it. But if he had not been mishandling classified information, and was only having an affair, then I don't care.

 

[Etype]

He should not be prosecuted for having the affair.

Until the UCMJ is changed, he should be prosecuted.

 

[Il Duce]

I think the logic behind having various aspects of a servicemember's personal life subjected to UCMJ is the old 'good order and discipline' argument. The idea that military authority is in part derived from its ability to enforce discipline, standards of conduct - and thus values is a theme that ties back to the earliest parts of the military.

I think there's a strong argument to say a big part of those standards are not as relevant or useful today - and thus should be changed. In my opinion there's a host of rules and standards that aren't the most useful - or just. The problem I think the powers that be face is it's a slippery slope. If you start saying UCMJ should be modified or curtailed significantly you could start a downward trend towards legislators and the public saying 'why do you guys have UCMJ in the first place?' In the US elected executives, judges, and military commanders have the ability to pass sentence on someone. The first two are on pretty solid constitutional and social ground - you won't hear much argument about that authority being in the right place. The last one, I think is a harder sell - especially in a US where the military is a smaller and more professionalized force, without as strong ties back to society.

I've heard an argument, that was very convincing to me, that in general that debate/concern is at the heart of why DoD leadership - especially uniformed leadership - has reacted so strongly on sexual assault/sexual harassment. It wasn't about the morals or PC culture (after all assault and harassment had been going on for decades). It was the new political reality of a number of Senators (mostly female) looking at the way UCMJ was handling that problem and deciding the DoD was pretty shitty at UCMJ. Arguments that 'no, we're really good at UCMJ if you look at it objectively' from the brass were not selling well when you can trot out a host of testimonials like in the invisible war. All of a sudden congress was not buying that shit from the brass and it looked like changes in UCMJ authorities were coming in the realm of sexual assault/harassment handling. Once that was done the brass was terrified it was a slippery slope to massively curtailing the DoD's UCMJ authority. That's why we saw such a massive investment in SHARP training and the like - those dudes were fighting for power.

I think you see something similar with a lot of the values-based UCMJ rules we have - adultery, sodomy, improper use of a countersign, drunk on duty, provoking speech or gesture, wrongful cohabitation, unauthorized pass offenses, gambling with a subordinate, indecent language, straggling - that kind of shit. I think the brass is reluctant to start trimming and modernizing a lot of the conduct because it risks the rest of it getting limited. I think the Flynn case mentioned is really at the heart of the unintended consequences that caused - and the danger of 2nd and 3rd order effects. Most of the seemingly ridiculous articles used to be (and some still are) seldom used. They're just there so if the prosecutor decides to put you down he's got an incredibly powerful set of tools to do it with. After the Flynn debacle was so heavily politicized it meant now adultery can't be one of those tools but has to be something that stands on it's own.

 

[CDG]

Until the UCMJ is changed, he should be prosecuted.

Did you think I was saying otherwise? This is a theoretical argument. I'm not oblivious to the reality.

 

[Etype]

Did you think I was saying otherwise? This is a theoretical argument. I'm not oblivious to the reality.

Gotcha, I was unsure.

 

[Dame]

Hope he didn't conduct any of his affairs in Illinois. Turns out it's illegal for anyone there.
Adultery is a crime, judge tells man suing wife for reading lovers' emails
ETA: Had to look it up. As of 2015...
16 States Where You Can Get That Cheating Jerk Thrown in Jail

 

[Locksteady]

I may have disagreed with your overall post, but the 'quoted' is funny. All these years and I've never thought of that saying in that particular way!

@Diamondback 2/2 -
Disagree because regardless of rank, but especially when we are getting up in the "Generals", the opportunity to be held hostage for secrets (or certain decisions) is very real. And not necessarily only by foreign operatives - I'd not put it past a "buddy" to demand a favorable assignment, promotion, etc because (s)he happened upon the General's backdoor action.

On the other hand, it may be introducing the only factor making the increasing demographic of swingers and less socially-concerned cheaters susceptible to coercion or blackmail in the first place by threatening to destroy their careers.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

I changed the thread title so that the Air Force could get their licks in too...

General demoted for having sex with female subordinate | Daily Mail Online