Posted on 06/22/2010 4:07:18 AM PDT by 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.
He is already groveling, and he is already toast.
I have just read my first, and I hope, my last article in Rolling Stone magazine.
What was McChrystal thinking??????
The author says he had three lengthy interviews with McC, and spent a month “around the general.”
Thank you.
I think in the civilian world, people think that the oath requires blind obedience to the President. IT DOES NOT. That is the ‘I was just following orders’ alibi that the Nazi’s used. As you posted, it is a delicate balance and sometimes doing the right thing cost a soldier his career or even his life.
4 Star general. West Point. Commander of ISAF (international commander) jointly Commander all US Forces in Afghan. Not stupid. Wrote controversial ROEs that have come home to roost in obambi’s nest— doing as he was ordered to do. Now the ROEs are getting our guys killed, and that is just what obambi et al want— military failure and embarrassment to punctuate the stated date of withdrawal. Remind you of anything— maybe Vietnam being run by LBJ from the WH. obambi is central control freak- and that is why he is a failure.
I think its a tough place to be when you are in a job where you have true loyalty to your subordinates, but you have a boss who has no loyalty to them. Do you step away knowing that your troops will be in worse shape, or do you try to mediate for their interest, knowing you will never get the full support they really deserve?
I do not envy any senior officer, regardless of their political slant, under this administration. But they still have a duty to the constitution and that includes following orders and using chain of command. It becomes problematic when the CIC has no respect for what they do and their sacrifice.
There are quite a few liberals amongst the officer ranks of the military, from the junior to senior grades. As long as they do their job though we get along fine.
We're all wanting a copy of that Rolling Stone.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting.
I hate to say it but I think a lot of people here are fine with it because it isn't "their guy" in office. They would be calling for heads to roll if generals were criticizing a conservative president publicly.
Ten percent - if that.
The time is not yet.
It is sad that more - much more - will have to happen, but that's a fact. Premature rebellious gestures are just going to get a lot of people killed.
Two different things. I'm glad you have such high regard for us in uniform though that you would think we'd go along with that. Take your strawman elsewhere.
Also, our oath to protect the Constitution also means that we support a civilian government. That means the military stays out of goverance.
Obama is such an ineffective leader who fails at everything he tries to do but hey that gets his sympathy votes from the idiot Liberals to them Obama is always the victim.
Thank you very much for posting that link.
We live in remarkable times. We have in the Oval Office a Kenyan Clown who is apparently not even eligible to serve in that office, and whole circus of clowns in the administration.
We have an aggressive general, in command of our currently hottest hot spot, who apparently has lost whatever respect he might have had for that usurper.
Well, I don't know what to make of this. Will we see the general stand up or back down? The public spotlight is harshly focused on this, and it is possible that we will see dramatic (or at least melodramatic) end to this situation.
My own guess is that the Kenyan Clown ends up firing the general. Whether this is couched as a resignation or as a job termination, I have no idea.
After reading the article, my take on his vote for O is just his way of being able to keep doing what he’s doing. A career move, so to speak, where he knew he could get what he wanted from our “president”, a guy with no military experience, no leadership experience, who needed a go-to-General. McC is that guy.
Time for Obama to create his “loyal to him only” civilian security force.
After all, Hitler did not have the full loyalty of the German military. So he created his SS, right?
And as for those who criticize our Dear Furher, well, not all Germans liked Hitler either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.