Report: Insubordinate McChrystal Called Back to Washington for White House Meeting

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

NBC News' Savannah Guthrie reports this morning that Gen. Stanley McChrystal is being called to Washington for a meeting at the White House tomorrow in the wake of a Rolling Stone article that has exposed McChrystal and his staff as mockingly disrespectful of their civilian overseers, including their commander-in-chief President Barack Obama.

Guthrie posted at Twitter:

McChrystal has been ordered to the Sit Rom tomorrow to explain his stmts criticizing admin officials to Rolling Stone to POTUS in person 15 minutes ago via UberTwitter

Guthrie added: "McChrystal has been calling around town apologizing to officials."

The Atlantic reported late last night that McChrystal had been called by numerous top officials last night:

Within hours after today's Rolling Stone story broke, McChrystal was called by the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They were not happy.

The Atlantic also notes that McChrystal never completely had the trust of the Obama administration:

Even though McChrystal voted for Obama and told him so during their first meeting, he sensed that a number of senior White House aides didn't really believe that the former commander of the military's special missions unit during the Bush-Cheney years was suddenly on their side. National Security Adviser James Jones, who is a bit of cipher to McChrystal's team, may or may not have been one of these aides. No one in the West Wing bought all that liberal internet chatter about JSOC's alleged crimes -- but no one really didn't buy it, either.

[Pollster1]

Obama calling McChrystal back for a reprimand is like his spiritual mentor calling the Dalai Lama to Chicago for a reprimand. The idea is revolting.

[SueRae]

Thanks for that link. I haven’t finsihed it yet...but this is a backhanded hit piece. And I’m not convinced of the author statement of McChrystal of having voted for Obama, either. There’s just too many self-serving subtleties and no so subtle phrases in there. It’s unfortunate for the General...he’s in the War..and I don’t begrudge an offhand reference or several thrown towards this Administration. But as the title suggest regarding McChrystals enemies..it wasn’t complete. McChrystal needs to add the press to his enemies’ list.

[NonValueAdded]

McArthur II?

[Past Your Eyes]

Agreed. Veterans, too.

[Daryl L.Hunter]

I proposed on the Bill Bennet show last Fall that because Obama wasn't giving McChrystal what he needed to win in Afghanistan the he and Petraeus should resign in protest.

Daryl L. Hunter
The Hole Picture

[AAABEST]

“We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our assistance and civilization. We were able to verify that this was true, and because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood, to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by their frame of mind, I am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and vilify our action. I cannot believe that all this true, and yet recent wars have shown how pernicious such a state of mind could be and to where it could lead. Make haste to reassure me, I beg you, and tell me that our fellow citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we protect the glory of the Empire. If it should be otherwise, if we should leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then BEWARE THE ANGER OF THE LEGIONS!!”

That this was written so long ago yet is so prescient today makes that quite profound. It's like this Roman is speaking from the grave.

Thanks for posting.

[MindBender26]

A disturbance in the force among the General/Flag officer corps is a great thing.

it has existed among the Company and Field grade officers for at least 14 months.

It’s even worse in the Senior NCO ranks.

Remember when Ollie North was called before a congressional committee.....and had them for lunch?

[schu]

This is PR disaster for Obama.

Agreed, this hurts Bam more than anyone else. At a time when his competency is being questioned on virtually everything, even from his supports, the last thing he needs is a confrontation with a field general of distinction.

He will try to look the tough leader in control, but in the end he will look the weasel wimp he really is.

schu

[Grampa Dave]

He voted for 0haha, and was promoted up the ranks during the Clintoon’s raping and pillaging of America and our military.

Anyone, who voted for 0haha, deserves whatever fate comes his/her way from the 0haha thugs, who control our country.

[Grampa Dave]

Very interesting material.

[John S Mosby]

As this situation unfolds, do not discount the heavy fine hand of the Clintons in all of this. Eikenberry sent a cable (secret, and somehow leaked-NO! to the NYslimes) outlining his disagreement with the surge, that it would further make Karzai dependent on the US (ridiculous, ANY govt in Afghan is dependent on the US- if not they are dependent on heroin warlords, ie. the Taliban). Eikenberry is/was undermining a true special ops commander in McChrystal. Eikenberry is also West Point,graduating prior to Mcchrystal by 3 years, and his career reads like a “perfumed prince” political type— and, he works for Hillary, was formerly in country in Afghan prior to this post, so he has is pals in country, too. Mcchrystal is commander of ISAF, is a special ops snakeeater, airborne, well respected by his commands. JSOC and CIA worked together to kill Zarqawi in Iraq. They are effective- and of course State dept. weenies don’t want that, and neither does Obama. There is a break in success in all this, and that is the nightmare of the destruction of head of mission CIA and others in Afghan, by a false flag bomber “vetted” by Jordanians. Of course, one has to ask what the hell was Mcchrystal doing interviewing with RS- RS!!!? There are be considerably better ways to get out the truth. And this could all be a set up, too.

[Gritty]

While you’re there at the White House, General, why don’t you ask The Pretender if you can see his original birth certificate to see if he even has the authority to fire you...?

[AAABEST]

Reading the PDF you linked now. I found this telling:

Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his fucking war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

[Yosemitest]

It's 20 pages from the "Air War College Air University",
but for anyone who really wants to understand this delicate quandary,
Please read Divided Loyalties: Civil-Military Relations at Risk.

... Consider the following instance of “necessary” and officially sanctioned lying.
Military members involved in highly sensitive, classified activities may be given a cover story that conceals the true nature of their work and told to adhere to it. If it’s legal to direct a member to disseminate a cover story--lie--in the interests of national security, is it also legal to order an officer to lie in the scenario’s circumstances?

The military oath, Constitution, and commissioning letter combine to form the legal basis of commitment and loyalty for military members. From these it is clear the superior loyalty should be expressed in protecting the values reflected in the Constitution. Additionally, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Law of Armed Conflict contain legal considerations of which an officer should be cognizant. Sometimes, though, as in the scenario above, an officer is torn between two legitimate loyalties—the Army colonel legally owes loyalty to the Army Chief of Staff and President, but he also owes loyalty to the people (as represented by their elected members).

... The Air Force doesn’t mention the importance of loyalty at all in the publication that discusses its core values. It does, however, strongly advocate “faith in the system”:

To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt “the system”, [sic] then subordinates may follow suit.

The implication is that an officer owes his or her ultimate loyalty to the system (the Service), rather than to the country or transcendent values. Officers are taught from the moment they first put on a uniform that loyalty to teammates is inviolable.

...COL (XXXXX) needs to tell the truth. Although he’s presented with two legitimate claims on his loyalty—loyalty to the Army and President versus loyalty to the Congress and the Constitution—expressing his loyalty to the former would require him to sacrifice his integrity and lie. Telling the truth is (XXXXX)’s best way of maintaining loyalty to himself, the Army, and the nation, even if it costs him his career. And as Colonel Charles Dunlap, Air Education and Training Command’s Judge Advocate General, points out,

“military people are expendable in a just cause. Disclosing information to legislators under the right circumstances, [as in the scenario], is simply part of the democratic process the U.S. military exists to defend.”

Sometimes an officer is called upon to sacrifice his comfort or career rather than his life. In our estimation, it’s an extremely rare instance in which an officer can sacrifice personal integrity and still make the right choice.

[AUJenn]

Interesting you say that. Last Wednesday’s paper had a front-page story about Obama’s oval office speech. There were several ‘man-on-the-street’ interviews about reactions to the speech. Below the person’s picture was their name, age and job title. Three were black men, all retired military. They all gave glowing praises to the speech, saying how wonderful it was and how everyone just wants to bring Obama down. The other interviewees had much harsher, negative reactions to the speech.

It has become clear to me that race is a huge issue with Obama that is not going to go away.

[MindBender26]

Are you implying Ceneral McCrystal is a Nazi?

Are you a newbie?

R U D DU Troll?

[geege]

My peer next to me is in the Army and has a picture of the DH on her desk with “Mr. President” underneath....go figure....

[a fool in paradise]

new tagline

[roses of sharon]

Of course, if it was Pres. Bush facing such criticism from a general in the field, it would be trumpeted as evidence of Bush’s incompetence, stupidity and lack of leadership.

And of course...the General should have resigned instead of complaining to the press.

[cranked]

More proof that Jack Squat Barry can’t handle the TRUTH....(Jack Nicholson mode).