If anything, I'd argue that Bush got too attached to what his top generals were saying. He kept following Casey's advice through 2005-2006, right up to the point of disaster.

Sounds a little disturbing, but the military also shouldn't say "we need this many troops and we'll turn it around" then proceed to make no progress at all and request further troops. They shouldn't make promises they can't keep (if Jones' characterization of their advice is accurate), just as they shouldn't be silenced.

I think Dr. Feaver's argument on civil-military relations is pretty much correct. And he (along with many others) certainly would be right to blast President Obama or any president for even suggesting either directly or indirectly that military commanders should censor the advice they give up the chain of command. However, I'm not sure that is what happened here. Much depends on what else was said in this meeting and the overall tenor and tone of not only Jones's remarks but also the response of the officers in the room. Also, for the part that really troubled Dr. Fearver we don't know what Jones exactly said as we only get Woodward's summary. Dr. Feaver's analysis seems to read quite a bit into this situation. After reading Woodward's article multiple times I don't see what Dr. Feaver sees here.

This may in fact be much to-do about nothing. Commanders are always asking for more footprint, and as commander-in-chief, President Obama has already kicked-in an additional 4 grand's worth over the initial 17,000 as pointed-out (and rest assured, they'll be a few more support personnel not counted).

Jim isn't signaling these commanders without prior knowledge of the SecDef, CENTCOM, or his boss back in the oval office. He's just reminding them of what used to be known on their fitness reports as young (Marine) officers: "economy in management."

The key thing to remember Mr. Feaver is it may well be this administration doesn't want to find itself bogged-down, having committed itself entirely, nor do they want to convey to the Afghan, that America is going to become an occupier (something SecDef Gates has concern over). We are up against General Time - and time is also an enemy.

Jim Jones, as National Security Advisor may in fact be a suit, but everyone's well aware of his background, and hearing it first hand from him may in fact be what was desired.

My bet is if there is an opening that a reinforcement des troupes might be able to exploit - they'll be made available.

I think White house is already been aware of the affairs in the Senate.Al Franken, comedian, political commentator, and Saturday Night Live alumnus, has come to the end of the intense battle over whether or not he won election to the U.S. Senate from his home state of Minnesota. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared Franken the winner of the race, after it was contested by incumbent Norm Coleman that the election wasn't conclusive. It isn't known if Coleman intends to appeal the decision to federal courts, which could tie up the seat in the Senate for longer, but Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has declared that he will back the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision, whatever it is, and Coleman will need a lot more fast cash to appeal his loss to Al Franken further.

Woodward doesn't put this sort of thing out there unless somebody with an agenda is feeding it to him.

It has to be considered in the context of the emails Steve Clemons has been getting from his sources indicating "knives getting longer" for Jones on the part of the liberal interventionist faction in the administration.

Peter,

Your comments are spot on, but the fault is not all Jones’—and I’m not implying that that is your opinion. I sat through many briefs to congressional delegations during visits to Camp Fallujah. Several times visiting congressmen/women would ask the inevitable question: Do you have enough forces to do what you need to do? Without hesitation, the commanding generals would parrot the party line. When pressed for their professional opinions concerning the matter, CGs would not state what every major and lieutenant colonel in the room knew: we needed more troops. Some would sit silent for twenty or thirty seconds before answering, which spoke volumes. They were more worried about giving an answer they thought SECDEF wanted to hear rather than giving what was obviously the right answer. Therefore, we continued to play a futile game of whack-a-mole with the insurgents for the first few years of OIF.

What disappoints me about Woodward’s account, if true, is the silence of the senior leaders in the room following Jones’ questions (even if rhetorical). BGen Nicholson and his staff either failed to do the detailed staff work required to determine the right number of forces to accomplish their mission, or they lacked the spine and intelligence to properly state their case. If they had the courage of their convictions, they should have been willing to put their ranks on the line for such an important issue…apparently they didn’t feel it was that important.

Mr. Feaver, I agree with the main point that the President's staff should never silence the men on the ground. However, I think you're take needs more nuance. The full Woodward article indicates that the attempted silencing may not have been successful in this instance. After reading your article, I went on to read Woodward's article. In it, I found this quote, just a few lines down from where you ended the excerpt:

"We don't need more U.S. forces," Nicholson finally told Jones. "We need more Afghan forces." It is a complaint Jones heard repeatedly. Jones and other officials said Afghanistan, and particularly its president, Hamid Karzai, have not mobilized sufficiently for their own war.

Now, one might argue that Nicholson was just telling Jones what he thought Jones wanted to hear, but it is also possible that despite Jones's words, Nicholson did make his true opinion known.

Good story, very compelling and to the point. I'm wondering though if this is par for the course for the new administration, or if it's merely a slip-up/ misinterpretation.
I voted for Obama, and mostly approve of his work thus far, but if this is how they handle things then paint me unimpressed.