This is one of the more interesting things I've read inspired by the scandal: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/reconsidering-the-petraeus-...
What are you basing this on?
Substantially, all I'm saying is that affairs don't work like your standard relationship: they're always contextualized by the existing relationships.
It's beyond me why the Americans feel the need to cannibalise their highest public achievers for trivial personal faults.
> It's beyond me why the Americans feel the need to cannibalise their highest public achievers for trivial personal faults.
I couldn't give a rat's ass about this scandal myself. I've been super-unproductive today, and this comment thread was an effective diversion. But the article I linked suggests that this scandal is a good opportunity to recognize some more interesting things about Petraeus' history that have nothing to do with his personal life, per se.
My favorite part about the article was what it didn't talk about: namely, Broadwell barely figured into it except as a secondary example.
I'm inclined to think that anyone with his success and media profile will inevitably have jealous rivals who think he's a show pony, and that they'd be lining up to stick in daggers now he's down.
So maybe the article is credible, or maybe not, but this kind of thing was always going to to be written regardless of the facts. I'd put far more stock in his undisputable military achievements, which are perfectly sufficient to explain his media profile on their own.