More US troops for Afstan? Retired general rebukes serving one/Canadian general speaks/Gates Update

At least that's what it looks like to me:

National security adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands the 100,000 U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, warned bluntly last week in a London speech that a strategy for defeating the Taliban that is narrower than the one he is advocating would be ineffective and "short-sighted." The comments effectively rejected a policy option that senior White House officials, including Vice President Biden, are considering nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion...

Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," Jones said he had not spoken to Obama since the president met with McChrystal. But he indicated that the Obama administration, facing the most far-reaching foreign policy decision of its time in office, expects McChrystal and his military superiors to broaden the range of alternatives for how best to proceed in Afghanistan as the strategy review unfolds over the coming weeks.

"We will be examining different options," said Jones, a retired Marine general and former supreme allied commander in Europe. "And I'm sure General McChrystal and General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen will be willing to present different options and different scenarios in this discussion that we're having."..

Video:

Meanwhile, in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian general in Kabul speaks some truth, hope it's not career-challenging:

...
“If there's game-changers in Afghanistan – and we're slowly proving that the strategy that Gen. McChrystal is putting forward is making gains and slowly the insurgents are being pushed back and separated from the Afghan national population – that is going to help the Afghan national forces to hold and to participate and to build at the local level,” Gen. Tremblay [Brigadier-General Eric Tremblay, ISAF's chief spokesman in Afghanistan] said.

Ottawa has said Canadian troops may remain in Afghanistan after 2011 to help with development and social programs. But the end of combat operations is scheduled to come two years before the ANA, according to Gen. Azimi's [chief spokesman for the Afghan military] calculations, is able to operate independently.

“You could make the case” that Canada is ending its combat role in Afghanistan two years too early, said Gen. Tremblay. “It's really up to Canada to decide it. And so far we're out of here [emphasis added].”..

I'm amazed the paper put that near the end of the story, and that it missed the opportunity to lead with a screaming headline:

Canadian general claims we're quitting Afghanistan too soon

And, given our scheduled departure, one can imagine quite a few Afghans not being best pleased with these remarks by another Canadian officer:

Canadian soldiers need more help from Afghans to do the job of bringing peace to the country, says the commanding officer of the latest deployment of soldiers heading to Afghanistan.

"Canadians for several years now have gone to work closely with the Afghans to help them to develop and have a much more secure environment. We can't do it without them," Lt.-Col. Jerome Walsh said Sunday.

"Make no mistake. This is their mission. This is all about the Afghan people. Our role is to support them," Walsh said. "We have committed to this [emphasis added]; we want to support you but we need to do it together."

Walsh made the comments at Edmonton International Airport before boarding a flight for Afghanistan along with 120 soldiers and officers of Task Force 3-09 for a six-month rotation...

Earlier,

Islamist bad guys and Afstan/British brass hats and frock coats

Afstan: More on American brass hats and frock coats...

Update: A real smackdown from defense secretary Gates. Salute:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appeared to subtly [not subtly really - MC] rebuke America’s top commander in Afghanistan on Monday for publicly speaking out against calls for scaling back the war effort there.

“I believe the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency, so it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right,” Mr. Gates said at a gathering here.

“And in this process,” Mr. Gates went on, “it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations — civilians and military alike — provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”

“And speaking for the Department of Defense,” Mr. Gates said, “once the commander in chief makes his decisions, we will salute and execute those decisions faithfully and to the best of our ability.”..

Video:

Now the defense secretary has seemed to be on Gen. McChrystal's side in terms of substance. But there are limits, as I think he is pointing out. In a constitutional state ultimate decisions about military strategy are made by those in the position to do so, in the case of the United States by the president, a civilian. And, one way or another, those decisions are inherently political (cf. Roosevelt's over-ruling Marshall in 1942 and agreeing with Churchill to invade North Africa--"To Marshall's dismay, FDR backed Churchill's proposal for an Allied attack on North Africa in late 1942.").

If generals in effect go too public, they risk consequences that are politically rather than strategically driven. On the other hand, should President Obama end up losing two commanders in Afstan within a year...

Hard choices for what may end up being harder times for the Afghans.

Upperdate: The conclusion of a Washington Post editorial:

...
Defeating the Taliban and fostering an Afghan government and army that can stabilize the country are daunting tasks that will require years of patience. It could be that even a concerted effort, along the lines proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, would fail. There should be no mistaking, however, what the stakes of this conflict are. Whether or not al-Qaeda regains its pre-9/11 haven, a Taliban victory would be a catastrophe for the United States and its allies.