Wouldn't an insubordination also encompass insolence, or a challenge to presidential authority? I don't think that the question here was whether or not the General was obeying orders, I think that it was more a question of the pervasive attitude, at least as reported by RS.
Please don't misunderstand me - I agree with McChrystal's opinions, I just think that he picked the wrong venue to voice them in. For instance, (and this is the best analogy I can cone up with) if I think my company management is staffed by idiots and mention it to a couple of co-workers over beers after work....that's substantially different from standing up and loudly announcing it at the next all-hands company meeting.
The former is grousing and all grunts do it. The latter is a firing event, IMHO.
Like I said in my previous post, what the General did, just doesn't make sense. Unless there's forces at work here that we don't know about (which is entirely likely)....
Okay. But I was only asking an honest question, not actually having read any formal charges against the general. I know insubordination is usually loosely interpreted by most, by it's actually a narrowly-defined charge and may not apply in this case. Just wondering. Not questioning your sincerity.