No it didn't, he did what he did, the legal, penal, administrative ramifications reamain the same and disclosure eliminates the threat of disclosure.
The affair itself was of no great consequence other than it gave the administration the opportunity to kick Patraeus out of his job. Those rules are there to prevent potentially jeopardizing national security by someone who is looking for some "strange". The Soviets employed this tactic for decades, and I'm willing to bet that we did, too. And I'm sure you know that as well as I do. For whatever reason, unknown to us at this time, perhaps, Patraeus may have been viewed as a potential "loose cannon" because of his knowledge of the timeline of events and orders concerning Lybia. The affair, no matter who disclosed it, opened the door for the administration to pursue further avenues of pressure and coercion to insure that one of the primetime players (Patraeus) kept his mouth shut. I agree that "the role of the bitches" remains inexplicable as a tool of the administration. I don't believe the women were government plants. They only became another tool of the administration to discredit and mitigate any potential testimony by Patraeus IF he didn't do what he was told.
Obvioulsy, y0ur emotions have taken over your reason.
I beg to differ. I'm quite pragmatic about this whole thing. An Air Force Major told me a long time ago, "Son, $hit rolls down hill and gets deepest at the bottom. You and I both know who's on top and who's on the bottom." Same thing applies to Patraeus.