"... McChrystal will not get a lot more troops than his 70,000 odd ..."

Lang, in SST, here

NSC's (Jim) "Jones appears to be the "flavor of the week."  He was on the "Newshour" a few nights ago for a major interview.  Now he appears in this story by Woodward highlighting his role.  Some of this "attention" is defensive and intended to fend off "log-rolling" by the usual people seeking to cause his departure from the NSC.  He is suspected of insufficient devotion to Israel and so we have had stories planted here and there about a lack of warmth between him and the president, etc.  This is a bit of a corrective.

At the same time, Jones (in Woodward's story) gives firm guidance to the military chain of command in the matter of Afghanistan.  The message is clear.  Afghanistan will be an "economy of force" theater of operations.  McChrystal will not get a lot more troops than his 70,000 odd.   He is to concentrate on disruption of groups actually hostile to the US.  Obama (and Jones) do not want to reproduce Iraq/Vietnam in Afghanistan.  The wondrous wonderfulness of Counterinsurgency (COIN) as a panacea appeals greatly to today's officers.  Military officers are always looking to get promoted.   They climb onto any "bandwagon" rolling in the right direction.  Today the "bandwagon" has "COIN" painted on the side.  Tomorrow?  Who knows what fell beast of brooding is slouching toward the dawn of some new doctrinal "revolution."  While McChrystal is occupied with this limited task, an emphasis will be placed on economic development under the aegis of an international consortium of donors.  The theory is that property will reduce the attractiveness of Islamic zealotry.  Will it?  Perhaps..

In any event, I think that the policy in Afghanistan reiterated by Jones is the wisest available.  Will it be possible to resist the temptation to increase the size of the force there?  Perhaps.  The generals will make endless pleas for more people.  They always do."