Adulterers in Uniform: What Does It Matter?

It was refreshing to watch Bill Clinton standing before the nation, stating firmly: “I have been an adulterer, some of my best friends have been adulterers, and while that may not be the kindest way to run a marriage, it is a personal matter and has nothing to do with whether you are fit to send men into battle.” It was great to hear him being honest for a change.

Then I woke up.

All right, it is too much to expect that any man, let alone this president, will ever be that forthright on the subject of adultery, which, as women’s magazines have long been warning us, reflects a dominant characteristic to wander built into the male chromosome.

Some male leaders are honest about the prevalence of the practice. Francois Mitterrand once observed that if adultery were a disqualification, he would never have been able to form a Cabinet. And did anyone in France think less of his memory when both wife and mistress were positioned prominently at the side of his coffin? Hardly. The French are a civilized people.

According to the New Yorker magazine, Clinton had at least one adulterer in his Cabinet, and he, too, in death is revered as having made a considerable contribution in serving his country. The magazine claims that the president’s staff knew all about former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown’s long-running affair and Brown was quizzed about it before his appointment. The White House still parries inquiries about Brown’s adultery with an insistence that it was a private matter.

Which is the claim made by Clinton during the 1992 campaign when he said on “60 Minutes”: “I have acknowledged wrongdoing. I have acknowledged causing pain in my marriage. I have said things to you tonight and to the American people that no American politician ever has.” He also insisted this was a private matter. “I’m not prepared tonight to say that any married couple should ever discuss that with anyone other than themselves.”

Common decency would dictate that military personnel should have the same privacy rights that Clinton demanded. The president at least should announce a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and end the gossipy hot lines that are now the basis of a witch hunt that rivals past efforts to root out Communists.

Instead of apologizing for stupidly bringing adultery charges against 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn, our leaders insist on digging an even deeper hole for themselves. This country is becoming the laughingstock of the world by holding its military to a higher standard than it does its commander in chief. The argument for this double standard holds that adultery will cause officers to be distracted in the performance of their duties. Presidents are evidently made of sterner stuff.

But why stop at adultery; what about the instability of single officers who have sex with single partners? That can get pretty darn distracting. Forget about sex--what about those poor soldiers who just fall head over heels in love without ever losing their innocence? There are a million songs and poems suggesting that love of even the most ephemeral sort can lead one dangerously astray.

As yet, despite all the publicity attendant to the adultery scandals, there is no evidence that these dalliances in the slightest interfered with performance of duty. Indeed, the generals and admirals recently drummed out of the service for past adultery were all much decorated and heroic combat veterans. I’m not suggesting a correlation between sin and bravery, or that adulterous behavior be rewarded with promotions, but I would bet that spies and other traitors conduct much more circumspect lives.

In the case of Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, his best years of service to his country were while he was having his affair. And his partner, a CIA officer, must have enjoyed the highest of security clearances, ensuring that loose pillow talk never made its way to the enemy. Ralston’s service record was superb, and no one doubts that he would have made a terrific chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just as Kelly Flinn was obviously a great B-52 pilot.

Increasingly, our military is dependent on highly educated and sophisticated people, and it is absurd to treat them as children. These are responsible adults capable of conducting their own personal lives, which should concern their superiors only when it interferes with their duties. That’s the standard we apply to the president. The last two presidential elections have been a referendum in which the public has clearly rejected a severe puritanical code of behavior for its top leader. We should be as understanding of those in the military who report to him.