Tuesday, June 22, 2010

McChrystal Clear Insubordination

I haven't looked at any news today in the blogosphere, choosing instead to watch Morning Joe on MSNBC.

Joe, Mika, and the crew are covering the General Stanley A. McChrystal story, and doing it well.

They had the editor of Rolling Stone on in person to reveal some of the ins and outs of their story about the insubordination of the U.S. General in charge in Afghanistan.

I may update later after seeing what is being said in the blogosphere, especially if Joe Barton says he is sorry McChrystal has to suffer the ilk of a White House shakedown now that McChrystal has been ordered to appear at the White House to explain his words and actions in person to President Obama, Vice President Biden, National Security Advisor Jones, Special Ambassador Holbrooke, and some military brass.

We considered the influence the military was having on Obama in the post Is Obama Dominated By MOMCOM?.

We considered the attitude of many of those McChrystal commands in the post Support The Murdering Troops?, which quoted soldiers who said a lot of murder of innocent women and children was taking place as military policy.

Dredd Blog pointed out in the post Thanks Bill & Arianna that this comes at a time when the American people have been fed up with that war for years, a couple of elections that ejected bushie warsters, and at a time when people are waking up to smell the economic damage the stupid wars are doing.

So what we have in the making is a test for the White House, a test for the Obama Administration.

Will they cave in to the military insubordination or will they clean the place up?

UPDATE: Article 88, Code of Military Justice states:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
(CMJ Art. 88, emphasis added). Clearly, then, the McChrystal case turns on the definition of "contemptuous words", since the other conditions are not in dispute.

A military law journal article indicates that the statements McChrystal made have led to disciplinary action in the past.

BTW violation of Article 88 is a military crime punishable by up to 1 year at hard labor in the stockade, plus loss of monetary benefits; telling it to the press can add to that punishment.

It would be up to a military jury in a courts martial proceeding.

McChrystal would be lucky if he retired to his 75% military welfare pension, which is untouchable by civilian ponzi schemes.

UPDATE 2: One of the more important, if not the most important, reasons for Article 88 is to keep the military aware of its place in American life, in American Constitutional governance; that place is submissive to civilian governance, never tempting itself to consider a military coup.

UPDATE 3: President Obama relieved General McChrystal of command, and replaced him with General Petraeus, pending Senate approval.


  1. If McChrystal isn't fired summarily something serious is up. Apologies and lapses of judgement - especially of this sort - are not a valid excuse for a General Officer. The guy should have been packing long ago, but obviously Obama is tethered to military approval of some sort.

  2. McChrystalism is dead and sicko (but everywhere non-the-less) in the socially demented realms of Amurka, kinda like oil in the gulf.

    McChrystalism is unbridled insubordination of the global warlord type.