Hello readers: From time to time, N&S is the perfect platform to post the latest D.C. chatter. And today is such an occasion. We are hearing that there is some question about how much Ret. Gen. Jim Jones, the head of the National Security Council, is really guiding U.S. policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. To be fair, his job is not easy. Besides two wars, he must lead very strong personalities like Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. But his job is critical, especially as the administration has been aggressive on national security matters. So far, the president has announced his commitment to withdraw nearly all combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 and send more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

In addition, the administration has named several special envoys to tackle pressing issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And yet one well-connected senior former government official, Jones is " more a presider than a participant."

A defense official tells N&S: "He hasn't been knocking heads together because he hasn't had to for some time. …He had a couple of four-star jobs, and he got used to people saluting him and saying 'Sir, yes Sir,' to whatever he wanted, and he doesn't seem to understand that dealing with Clinton, Gates, Holbrooke and the rest of the team is different."

So far, said this official, who refused to be quoted by name because publicly criticizing the national security advisor would be a ticket out of government, Jones's passivity hasn't caused problems because there've been no major feuds that have needed refereeing. However, given Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy, the official said, "I'm not sure how well served the president is by an NSC adviser who just shuffles the paper."
 
Another administration official, however, questioned whether Jones should have questioned the administration's practice of installing special envoys such Holbrooke and George Mitchell (to the Middle East), to deal with long-running issues that might better be dealt with by the existing bureaucracy and interagency process.
 
Defenders of Jones concede the problem but said that all this is the natural sorting out process that comes with a new administration and slowly the wrinkles are being ironed out.

Either way, this all begs the question: Who exactly is leading the discussion on these important issues?