PLANK NOVEMBER 14, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

If you can somehow get past the shirtless G-man photos, the threatening emails, or the elaborate love triangles, then the most startling subplot in the Petraeus affair is the way Paula Broadwell insinuated herself into his world in the first place. As Broadwell herself has recalled, she met the general at a dinner for West Point alumni in 2006, then emailed him in 2008 while writing a paper on his theory of leadership. They took a run along the Potomac and stayed in touch, until one day she turned up in a war zone to write his biography. “I shot him an email, and said ‘I’m gonna to go for it,’” she told Jon Stewart in their now-famous interview. Before long, Petraeus had set her up with VIP housing at the NATO compound in Afghanistan and granted her total access.
The officers closest to Petraeus were stumped. Petraeus wasn’t just the Army’s most famous general. He was the military’s best-known and most accomplished intellectual. If he wanted an official biography, he could have had his pick of dozens of scholars and writers. “My gosh, if you are going to have someone interview everyone who has ever touched you in your life, choose someone who has written a biography or at least a history book,” Peter Mansoor, one of the general’s top aides, told The Washington Post.
Somehow the ultimate meritocrat had found a distinctly unqualified candidate to sum up his life’s work. And yet, in a way, Petraeus’s lapse wasn’t such a departure from his overachieving impulses and intellectual pretensions. In fact, it was arguably an outgrowth of them. The whole episode turns out to be a case study in how meritocracy can go off the rails.
This may be a good a time as any to remind ourselves that the term “meritocracy”—a bit like its cousin, “the best and the brightest”—wasn’t actually intended to be complimentary. It entered the lexicon through a book, “The Rise of the Meritocracy,” by the British social thinker Michael Young, who imagined a dystopian world in which a small group of highly educated elites controls society. The meritocrats persuade themselves that, unlike the ruling classes that came before them, they are uniquely deserving of power because they earned it rather than inherited it. (And they have the SAT scores to prove it, by God!) And yet, over time, they somehow manage to become just as inbred, self-serving, and corrupt.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
They story of how the meritocrats took over government and business has been told again and again. The story of how they took over the military is less well known, but just as consequential. As Fred Kaplan recounts in a fascinating Slate essay, the military’s great mental leap forward dates back to a George Marshall aide (and former Rhodes Scholar) named George A. Lincoln, who took it upon himself to up develop a new, high-powered breed of officer to lead the army in the postwar world. Lincoln set up shop at West Point, where he sought out promising young cadets, molded them into critical-thinking dynamos, and then deposited them into key positions in Washington and abroad. Over the decades, they became a kind of self-sustaining network—looking out for each other, hiring one another’s protégés, and generally congratulating themselves for being part of the club. Or, as they dubbed themselves, “The Lincoln Brigade.”
Kaplan points out that Petraeus, a Princeton PhD, is a product of this same network, having taught in the West Point department Lincoln built and having hired many of its alumni. But it’s probably fair to say he went beyond what even Lincoln imagined, cultivating his own Petraeus brigade—including a personal staff stocked with dozens of scholar-officers devoted to his brainiac virtues.
Like most meritocracies, Petraeus Inc. started off as a force for good. The brainy outsiders took over from flabby, self-satisfied insiders, making the world a little more just and a lot more efficient along the way. (By most accounts, the counterinsurgency manual Petraeus produced during the Iraq war was a major advance in military doctrine.) But, as Young predicted, the outsiders eventually became entitled insiders themselves. They filled their ranks with cronies. They resisted new ways of thinking and become overly susceptible to flattery. The Post describes how Petraeus welcomed the growing hoards of groupies who descended on his command posts, including conservative think-tankers from Washington, for whom he arranged office space and aircraft. Not for nothing did he earn the nickname “King David.”
Paula Broadwell, it turns out, was the kind of hanger-on whose arrival heralds a meritocracy in decline. Outwardly, she checked all the right sociological boxes: High school valedictorian, all-state basketball player, West Point alum, Harvard master’s degree. But, up close, she could be remarkably shallow. "There was no room for a conversation of shortcomings of the Petraeus theology. She wasn’t a reporter. She struck me as an acolyte,” a wonk who met her told the Post. “I was underwhelmed. It was surprising to me that she was his official biographer,” was how a former Petraeus aide described their discussions to the paper.
A friend of mine spent time with Broadwell in relatively intimate, seminar-type settings while she worked on her book, and had a similar reaction. When the seminar participants asked about her research on Petraeus, she fed them the kinds of platitudes she would later mouth on her publicity tour—“get the big ideas right,” “capture best practices and lessons learned,” etc. Though the questions were almost always innocuous, Broadwell would frequently become defensive and beg off. A typical response, according to my friend, was something like, “Whoa, I thought we were just having a friendly discussion here, not a debate.” (I emailed Broadwell to give her a chance to weigh in but didn’t hear back.)
What Broadwell excelled at instead was leveraging credentials to impress fellow achievers. She didn’t stop at her own. When my friend met her, she was fond of pointing out that her husband was no mere radiologist but a special breed known as an “interventional radiologist.” (She would draw out the word “interventional” for emphasis.) Later, she would boast about hanging out with the glitterati on the panel-discussion circuit—“Heading 2 @AspenInstitute 4 the Security Forum tomorrow! Panel (media & terrorism) followed by a 1v1 run with Lance Armstrong,” she recently tweeted, according to the Times. She was a kind of successful-person trophy collector who made no apologies for her ambitions. (My friend remembers the Facebook appeal in which she asked, “Can anyone introduce me to Lance Armstrong?”)
But her chief function was as a booster. The Petraeus book is, of course, almost embarrassingly admiring. As Jon Stewart put it in their interview, “[T]he real controversy here is, is he awesome or incredibly awesome?” My friend recalls that, whenever Broadwell fielded a question about military strategy or geopolitics during their seminar days, she would dutifully preface her comments with, “Let me tell you what General Petraeus would say,” or, “General Petraeus thinks...”
To Petraeus, long persuaded of his own brilliance and the righteousness of his cause, there would have been nothing especially suspicious about this. Paula Broadwell wasn’t some gate-crasher who descended inexplicably on Petraeus-land. She was a flatterer in a community of flatterers, a networker among networkers, a credentialist embedded with the credential-obsessed. She was, in the end, precisely the kind of courtier you’d expect to find when the king has been in power too long.
24 comments
Brilliant article, to point out that arc of "outsiders trying to fix things" becoming "insiders" then becoming "insiders hiring croneys" and then "the new corrupt insiders". That's one explanation, anyway.
- AllanL5
November 14, 2012 at 10:50am
next chapter: the Tampa Twins mud wrestle with CENTCOM. Huma Abedin is the referee. Not that it matters, but the apellation of "King David" came from Iraqis after the surge so detested by _____.
- K2K
November 14, 2012 at 11:00am
This is very well written. This reminds me of a comedy routine by Dave Chapelle. After riffing on President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and the difference between Monica Lewinsky and women Chapelle has known, he concluded by saying that President Clinton was so famous, so incredibly famous; and you could tell that was the case because someone can s--- his d--- and that person becomes famous.
- Nusholtz
November 14, 2012 at 11:11am
When men fall in love with being admired, they become blind and helpless. And it happens all the time. This suggests a need for the rare FOR MEN ONLY class in grad schools and MBA halls, where lads are taken through these case studies, grabbed by the throat, throttled and screamed at: "This is real, man....and NOBODY is immune."
- jacksaunde
November 14, 2012 at 11:23am
This strikes me less as a case of meritocracy run amok than sheer cronyism. And a cronyism that in this instance was sexually charged. No wonder things turned out as they did.
- sbmacdon@cox.net-old
November 14, 2012 at 11:54am
They used to called the male versions of Broadwell as "yes men" or kiss-ass. This isn't the case with Broadwell as a mere acolyte or crony. This is a person that is simply a more highly educated version of the socialite that name drops, tweets and gloms on to more powerful, well-connected persons and uses over-achievement to gain access or near access to certain individuals that will burnish their own reputation.
- singlspeed
November 14, 2012 at 1:00pm
One might also note that Broadwell was able to do the rounds of talk shows, including some where critical discussion is allowed (Daily Show, Charlie Rose), but was hardly challenged at all as to the seriousness of her book.
- ironyroad
November 14, 2012 at 1:05pm
Also she had a "co-author," Vernon Loeb: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/petraeus-ghostwriter-clueless-to-affair/2012/11/12/c1271634-2ce4-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html So much for "merit." The really goofy aspect of this is the Tampa Twins. Ms. Kelley is trying to claim diplomatic immunity now? PS talk about karma biting you in the tuchas. Plus, not so funny - those emails to her wouldn't have triggered an FBI investigation normally. The whole thing smacks of the abuse of power from many angles - FBI, the generals, these goofy women who somehow gained so much access why? Also not so funny - Eric Cantor. What the heck.
- Sophia
November 14, 2012 at 1:31pm
It seems that all you need to bring down the head of the CIA these days is an expensive military groupie and a besotted FBI agent with wingnut conspiracy theories. And the silly thing, of course, is that the Republicans are attacking Obama for the mess ... sheesh.
- icarus-r
November 14, 2012 at 2:00pm
Well the one good thing is that now the Dems can start asking what the hell an FBI agent was doing making a political issue out of a standard investigation that, whatever else, was not bringing up major security issues that rang alarm bells.
- ironyroad
November 14, 2012 at 3:02pm
For all I know, Petraeus may indeed be the greatest military mind since Napoleon or maybe even Julius Caesar. But somehow the adulation Petraeus has managed to stir up in the press reminds me of the media frenzy surrounding Donald Rumsfeld in the build-up to and first weeks of the Iraq invasion. Of course, my knowledge of military matters, despite three years in the Army as an EM during the Viet Nam era, is very limited, encompassing little more than that three of the four major American military adventures during my adult lifetime have ended (or are ending) in abject failure.
- BillW
November 14, 2012 at 3:45pm
irony's right. The FBI acted improperly in several regards I think. The shirtless "whistle-blower" was determined to make a thing of this. Ditto Cantor. BTW I have even been seeing comments to the effect that this must be Israel's fault. Well of course it is. We have 2 American generals, the FBI, a shirtless agent, Republicans gunning for Obama, an ambitious and lovestruck female (at least one) and a pair of Lebanese-American twins so this means it's the Mossad in action. Obviously!
- Sophia
November 14, 2012 at 3:50pm
@ Sophia: Though I cede to none in my dislike for Eric Cantor, I just can't see what he did wrong here on the facts I know. He received a rumor that the FBI was somehow covering up or failing to follow up on an investigation relating to Petraeus, but of course, he had no way of verifying the information--and isn't it likely that every member of Congress gets fed a large volume of questionable information all the time from questionable sources? So he told his chief of staff to relay that information to the head of the FBI. The information didn't seem to have the urgency that would warrant transmitting it to Mueller immediately--over the weekend or during the following two days while the Government was shut down for Sandy--and so the chief of staff duly reported it to Mueller on the next day the Government was open for business. Of course, if Cantor had somehow tried to make political hay out of the information, he would be taking a big, big risk, because he had no way of knowing whether it was true or not. Am I missing something?
- BillW
November 14, 2012 at 4:03pm
I don't know if you're missing anything or not BillW. I find it suspicious that GOP congresspeople were informed about this investigation by the shirtless FBI agent who instigated it, again, perhaps improperly (invasion of privacy, so forth - it's unclear to me that the half-dozen or so emails to Ms. Kelley amounted to the kind of thing that would normally be investigated by the FBI in the first place!) The FBI has rules about not informing outsiders about ongoing investigations period. The whole thing is confusing especially given the GOP's attempts to destroy the Obama Administration, which continue today with attacks on Susan Rice and threats by McCain, Graham and other Republicans to launch "Watergate" style investigations into Benghazi, which is a continuation of the politicization of that tragic event. It was unseemly and unpatriotic when Romney did it and that hasn't changed. Now: this piece by Maureen Dowd really lays out a some of the issues but her most important words are the last. Read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/opinion/dowd-reputation-reputation-reputation.html?hp&_r=0
- Sophia
November 14, 2012 at 4:19pm
Sophia : glad to see we finally agree on something: all conspiracies lead to Mossad :) except Eric Cantor could have blown a whistle before the election, and he did not. He referred the whole thing back to the FBI. Yeah, the Tampa Twins - they even look like Honey Traps out of a Bond movie! What the heck is going on at CENTCOM? And why is anyone at the CIA allowed to use Gmail, even for personal use? The NSA probably already does data mining word scans of Gmail titles. In the first episode of NCIS, "Yankee White", a plot incorporating elements from Tom Clancy's only film, "Air Force One", there is a jurisdictional dispute between Secret Service, FBI, and NCIS. When NCIS' Gibbs is told that the FBI gets the naval officer's body for autopsy, Gibbs says something like " If the FBI does the autopsy, we won't get a copy until the FBI leaks it to the Washington Post".
- K2K
November 14, 2012 at 4:20pm
no BillW, you are not missing anything about why Kelley's FBI friend, who had referred the Broadwell emails to the FBI cyber unit, got impatient, and went to a House rep from Washington state who then went to Cantor, who did what you summarized. America is not going to survive the toxicity of twelve years of PresidentDerangementSyndrome.
- K2K
November 14, 2012 at 4:29pm
@Sophia and K2K: Eric Cantor couldn't have blown a whistle or made political hay out of what he was told because he had no way of knowing whether the information about the FBI investigation was true or not--and it must have had a suspicious air of crankiness or malicious gossip about it. He didn't spread this questionable information further among his peers in the House (at least, we don't know that he did); instead he conveyed it discreetly to Mueller--it seems to me, on the facts that have been reported, that was the right thing to do under the circumstances. And the FBI seems to have done the right thing, too, except perhaps in not informing members of Congress responsible for intelligence. It followed up on the anonymous e-mails because they seemed to involve Petraeus (if I have the story right), and then removed the shirtless agent from any involvement when he exceeded his bounds. Whether the matter was brought to Mueller's attention before Oct. 31 (I don't think we know that yet), the FBI conducted the investigation and brought it to a close when it found no violation of law, without revealing personal information about the subjects of the investigation. I don't see a lot of malfeasance here--maybe some debatable judgment calls (though all of the facts and the timing of who knew what when aren't fully known yet), but not outright malfeasance. While the right-wing media seems to have jumped on this matter and tried to connect it with Lybia, the Republicans in Congress seem to be waiting to see how the facts turn out--as they should. Yes, I did read Maureen Dowd's column. I certainly agree that this war has gone on too long--in large part due to Petraeus' lobbying for it, but some blame can be laid at Obama's feet, too. Although if he had brought the war to a swift close, there would be no end of recrimination from the right.
- BillW
November 14, 2012 at 4:45pm
Sorry, should be Libya.
- BillW
November 14, 2012 at 6:01pm
I still don't get why he had to resign, or what he did that was so awful. Possibility of blackmail? Well, that goes away when the truth comes out! Sharing of secrets? Latest on that was that there wasn't anything there to be concerned about. So, we all learn a lesson and move on, big deal. I think the harping on the story is mainly due to the fact that it involves sexy women, and the whole business, splashed as it is all over the front pages, is cruel and humiliating for the wife. Let's just get off it; none of it matters.
- JakeH
November 14, 2012 at 7:07pm
Why did Petraeus have to resign? Anyone who accepts the position of CIA Director has an obligation to avoid even potentially compromising irregularities in his or her personal life. Petraeus violated that obligation. He had to resign. In this case, the administration and others claim that no damage was done to national security, but no harm no foul can't apply to the nation's top intelligence post (and probably some other sensitive positions, too). Even if no harm to national security occurred here, the case itself--with a jealous lover sending anonymous but traceable e-mail threats to a perceived rival--demonstrates the potential for compromising entanglements, and there are plenty of other ways this matter could have unfolded that could be damaging to national security. At the very least, the CIA Director's illicit partner should be subject to the same sort of scrutiny of her background and connections that his or her spouse undoubtedly goes through, but unless the affair is disclosed, the illicit partner can't be properly vetted. And by the way, just think of what could have happened if James Clapper had not insisted that Petraeus resign (which Petraeus did not want to do). When knowledge of the affair became public (and that's when, not if), Clapper and Obama would have been accused of hiding the information from the public, and an even bigger scandal would have ensued.
- BillW
November 14, 2012 at 10:18pm
BillW, Cantor was right not to broadcast his information; maybe he should have alerted the President? What do I know. As it is, keeping silent wasn't the worst alternative. As to Petraeus and why he should have resigned: initially I didn't think so, having an affair, to me, doesn't amount to sufficient cause. However, these other aspects of the situation came up, including Ms. Broadwell talking about CIA having prisoners in Benghazi, which CIA denies. So, where did she get that idea? Also she had classified documents in her house. How did she get them? Also the Tampa thing. It makes Mr. Petraeus appear to have poor judgement and we can't afford that.
- Sophia
November 14, 2012 at 11:14pm
It wasn't the breach of personal morality, or any actual damage to national security, that made Petraeus' resignation imperative: it was the potential--and unforeseeable--risks to which he subjected national security by engaging in clandestine improprieties while CIA Director. By having an affair, he violated a duty to avoid such improprieties--a duty that he undertook when he accepted the office. Even in the absence of actual damage to national security, the circumstances of this case dramatically illustrate how the unforeseeable consequences of such behavior can spiral out of control. Yes, I know: Allen Dulles. But that was 50-60 years ago, and the CIA was a much more amateurish organization back then.
- BillW
November 14, 2012 at 11:53pm
BillW, I don't really care one way or the other, but let me ask you this: did he violate a rule of disclosure or any other rule? Did he lie? Did he disclose secrets? Did he do anything wrong qua CIA director? Not that I've heard about. You keep saying that he accepted a duty to be squeaky clean in his personal life in order to avoid potentially "compromising entanglements," "clandestine improprieties." (I thought "clandestine improprieties" was sort of what the CIA was for!) Anyway, would you apply that same standard to anyone with a high-level security clearance? To the president himself? You also keep saying that things have spiraled out of control. Nah, not really. Only in a soap opera sort of way. This doesn't illustrate unforeseen consequences for national security -- only unforeseen consequences for Patraeus. Nothing has happened here that's of any consequence for the country whatsoever, except that everyone enjoys a sex scandal. I'll admit that the hullabaloo itself may make his position untenable, but the hullabaloo still seems like much ado about nothing, and I find somewhat distasteful that attention lavished on it.
- JakeH
November 15, 2012 at 1:19am
Jake, I respectfully disagree. Maybe there was no harm to national security in this instance, but that's just a matter of happenstance. Personal improprieties have unforeseeable consequences, as this case shows. Accepting the CIA director job--and other sensitive positions--entails an obligation to avoid personal improprieties. And, to anticipate the next argument, I don't think Clinton--the classical case of personal improprieties in a high-level, sensitive position--can be excused, either. He let his supporters down. Even though he managed to weather the storm, his conduct, when it came to light, undercut his effectiveness in achieving the goals his supporters elected him to pursue and disrupted the country for months. (In fairness, I think he's done a lot to make amends since then, and I admire him.) Personally, I have nothing against adultery per se--in fact, I'm all for it. But if you accept the job, you have to accept the obligations that go along with it.
- BillW
November 15, 2012 at 8:21am