29.0°

Unusual friction seems to be developing between the Obama administration and its commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The national security adviser, James Jones, appeared to rebuke McChrystal for campaigning to get 40,000 additional troops to stabilize Afghanistan.

Some administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, say al-Qaeda's defeat, not Afghan stability, should be the priority. But in London on Thursday, McChrystal labeled as "short-sighted" any strategy "that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position."

Jones suggested on CNN on Sunday that McChrystal had overstepped his authority: "Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

That's true, but McChrystal's comments seem hardly out of line. After all, President Barack Obama has supported a strong troop and stabilization strategy in Afghanistan. He moved McChrystal into his current position in large part because he didn't believe his predecessor, Army Gen. David McKiernan, was effective in implementing one. Only recently has the administration seemed to pause over whether a troop buildup and stabilization strategy is the best way to go. Consider what Obama said in a July 2008 trip to Kabul:

"We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus. ... I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here."

The administration now contends that troop levels are only one component of an overall strategy still under review. True enough. But to some degree, other components hinge on Western forces' ability to keep the Taliban at bay. That's why settling on a firm and shared strategy for Afghanistan is critical.

If the administration is rethinking its strategy in Afghanistan, Obama should be clear about how and why. Short of that, McChrystal deserves unequivocal support.