The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Plans to Cut Its Staff by Half at Iraq Embassy,” at least shows we are coming to our senses regarding the scope of our mission in Iraq, through a presence that is more suited to our national security interests for the country.

With the final troops having left just two months ago, the embassy staff had swelled to 16,000 people, with only 2,000 of them as actual diplomats. Meanwhile, Iraq has exerted its authority and made things as inconvenient as possible for the United States, especially the security contractors who are viewed as “cowboys.”

The political situation prohibits the Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, from being overly friendly to the United States, and the size of the embassy makes it seem like U.S. occupation under another name.

As a comparison, the staff for the U.S. embassy in Turkey is only 55, with less than 10 of them as actual diplomats. So Iraqi suspicion of the U.S. embassy’s purposes may actually be grounded in fact.

Perhaps, it is our unwillingness to acknowledge that the lives of all our young Americans may have been lost in vain, a reluctance to admit the size of our error in invading that nation.

At least, the cut in our embassy staff will ensure that we do not compound our mistakes in the future.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Drones Stir Outrage in Iraq; Fleet May Grow,” describes the increasing use of a new technology for the military, CIA and now, the State Department.

U.S. technology has always served as the trump card to keep us on top, and the new use of drones for protection of U.S. citizens, especially as monitoring devices for potential threats against State Department convoys, empowers our officials in their diplomatic undertakings.

It’s also important to understand the difference between State Department drones and military ones. The most important, that State Department drones are unarmed, gives their use added legitimacy. In fact, the wingspan for unarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs) is 18 inches compared to 55 feet for the armed Predator and Reaper drones more typically employed over Pakistan.

Of course, the Iraqi government is now making a big deal about these unarmed UAVs, claiming sovereignty over its own skies. However, much of the clamor is for domestic political purposes, and after the withdrawal of U.S. armed troops, it is hard to fathom that the current government would stop the use of these drones, employed partly for their own protection.

We’ll see what happens. However, after recent events in Somalia, our President is getting a reputation as someone not to mess around with.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iraq Insurgents Take Up Politics, Raising Tensions,” describes an alarming attempt by a militant Iraqi group, beholden to Iran, to enter the Iraqi government, with the blessing of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki is playing a political game, trying to get new allies in the Iraqi parliament where he is currently persona non grata after an attempt to arrest the country’s Sunni Vice President on hard-to-believe accusations of running a hit squad.

This move resulted in a walkout by many members of Parliament, leaving them without the quorum necessary to do business. Maliki claims that the new group, Asabi Ahl al-Haq, or AAH for short, has foresworn violence … after killing scores of Americans and being identified as having a close relationship with the Iranian al-Quds fighting force.

That remains to be seen with numerous American diplomats and securithy contractors still in the country. Even the belligerent political party of Moktada al-Sadr has had a falling out with AAH and views them as too radical to enter the government. Of course, AAH would need to win some elections first.

And meanwhile, violence has spiked again in the country after the Americans’ departure. Multiple bombings, including a recent one killing more than 40 Shiite pilgrims, threaten to renew a civil war in the nation.

What a mess.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Arrest Warrant for Sunni Leader Spurs Iraq Crisis,” calls into question all the money, effort and lives we spent during the war to give the nation stable institutions and foster the values of democracy.

The day after U.S. forces completed their pullout from Iraq, the Prime Minister wasted no time in pursuing his most ambitious effort yet to consolidate power. He ordered the arrest of the Sunni Vice President, accusing him of assassinations and terrorist attacks. This comes on top of the past two months spent rounding up Baathist party officials, primarily Sunnis, and secular politicians supporting the bloc led by Ayad Allawi.

It is discouraging to think that after all these years, our best efforts to export democracy to a troubled land mean so little. The very institutions we helped to build, the police, media and the courts, are now being used by the person in power against his political opponents.

The outcome of this turmoil can’t be very good. Sunni officials leading major parts of the government, including finances, schools and agriculture, are threatening to walk off the job, and the Parliament couldn’t even meet because they were unable to attain a quorum. Maybe, this time, the United States will be able to temporarily ameliorate the situation, but it is definitely not a good sign.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Marks End to a Long War for an Uncertain Iraq,” describes a conflicted situation, both for the Arab nation and its erstwhile liberators.

While it is true that the war overthrew a despicable dictator, the aftermath of the conflict left the Iraqis with a country broken in many ways. The outburst of sectarian violence has never totally healed; the country still hasn’t resolved how to divide its oil wealth; and the independent judiciary system sought by the U.S. remains to be satisfactorily achieved.

On its side, the United States has lost 4,000 young citizens and who knows what their contribution to our nation may have eventually been? There could have been another Steve Jobs among them, and our nation will never be able to replace their contributions to both our society and their own families.

The end came at a modest ceremony, with the U.S. tanks taking the same highway to Kuwait they used when they came in as an invasion force. The political legacy of the war in Iraq has been even more bitter, as it has polarized our nation with implications for everything from healthcare to our crumbling infrastructure.

And the “weapons of mass destruction” used as a justification for the war have never been found.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Detainee in Iraq Poses a Dilemma as U.S. Exit Nears,” shows how one person can make all the difference, for good or ill. Even if that person is a prisoner who killed five American soldiers.

The crux of the matter concerns whether the prisoner, Ali Daqduq, is released into Iraqi sovereignty or taken back to the United States, or Guantanamo, to face trial. The prisoner is definitely a dangerous person who could kill again — his background is as a member of Hezbollah from Lebanon.

The problem with releasing him into Iraqi custody occurs because Iraq has released a lot of prisoners either without trial or upon acquittal. And Prime Minister Maliki may fall under substantial pressure to release this man.

Plus, according to a 2006 Status of Forces Agreement between the Bush administration and Iraq, the Iraqis have full rights to the prisoner, so taking him back to the United States would not involve extradition but illegal rendition. And Mr. Maliki is also under pressure to avoid accommodating the U.S. when Iraqi sovereignty is at stake.

In effect, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. And, of course, the Republican presidential candidates are just complicating matters. Without any burdens of diplomatic relations with other countries, or even following the law, they are falling over themselves to characterize Obama as weak unless he transfers the prisoner to Guantanamo.

One person, one dilemma.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Last U.S. Soldiers to Exit from Iraq in 2011, Obama Says,” represents a welcome break from past military adventurism as promoted by the Bush administration.

At a cost of 4,400 American lives, it’s time to finally cut our losses and leave well enough alone. The Iraqis must determine their own future, and we’ve done just about all we can for them. President Obama has finally fulfilled his campaign promise, largely responsible for his victory over Hillary Clinton, and given us more breathing space to focus on rebuilding at home.

Of course, 95,000 troops remain in Afghanistan, but with the increasing effectiveness of our drone technology — responsible for derailing Muammar Qaddafi’s motorcade as well — they are largely superfluous. As Vice President Biden has advocated, we need to focus more on counterterrorism than counterinsurgency.

The complete withdrawal comes as somewhat of a fluke, though. Military planners were negotiating with the Iraqis to keep a force of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in the country as a check against future violence. But the Pentagon, in its usual arrogant manner, insisted on immunity for those soldiers, so they wouldn’t be held to the law of the land, and the Iraqis refused. It was just one bridge too far for them to cross. So, all the troops will be home for the holidays.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Plan Would Keep Military in Iraq Beyond Deadline,” boils down the issue about Americans in Iraq to two fundamental questions. Will any troops stay, and if so, how many?

The answer pits hawks against doves, pragmatists against idealists, and all is cast upon the backdrop of required action by the Iraqi government. U.S. military commanders do not believe Iraq is capable of providing for its own security and suggest leaving 14,000 to 18,000 troops there beyond the upcoming deadline of the end of the year.

Meanwhile, President Obama is faced with his own longstanding pledge of going to zero by December 31st and the possibility of disappointing his base by once again after so many compromises during the past three years.

Of course, all this is playing out against the internal politics of the Iraqi government, whose Premier, Nuri al-Maliki, is beholden to Moktada a-Sadr, a violently anti-American cleric.

The current leaked amount of troops to remain is 3,000, a number disappointing to hawkish Senators such as Lieberman, McCain and Graham who prefer the 14K number. Of course, the American Embassy is being greatly expanded with security personnel in any case, and a new Office of Security Cooperation will be fully staffed. Stay tuned for more drama.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “The Iraq Archive: The Strands of a War,” shows how the military tends to exaggerate in war time or excessively avoid it. The summary provides specific examples and an overall picture of the Iraq war at variance with accounts and portrayals by the Pentagon.

One thinks back to the release of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg and its description of the Vietnam War and similarities between the two.

As an autocratic organization, the U.S. military likes to portray a positive picture of events during war time, and while this is commendable in some respects, it is not when it affects decision making by both the President, and the ultimate arbitrer of war efforts, the American people.

Some of the revelations of WikiLeaks are more a matter of degree than any earthshaking revelations, but they are important nonetheless. They include a greater death toll by Iraqi civilians, prison abuse by the Iraqi government that puts Abu Ghraib to shame, direct involvement by Iranians in support of their fellow Shiites — sometimes leading to conflict with American troops, and the movement of independent contractors to the forefront of the war effect, to the point of exceeding the number of American troops themselves.

For those who decry the release of sensitive documents by WikiLeaks, one wondes if the reason is more embarassment to the military instead of actual peril on the battlefield. The redacting seems to have been pursued in a thorough manner, both by The New York Times and the web site itself.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Accord Paves Way for Iraqi Premier to be Reelected,” describes the long-sought victory Nuri al-Maliki has been seeking after cobbling together a coalition seven months after the citizens split their votes among a variety of parties.

The critical group that put Prime Minister Maliki over the top was a radical Shiite coalition led by Moktada al-Sadr who had fought American and Iraqi soldiers in the streets during the nascent civil war in the country. Mr. Sadr’s followers are supported by Iran and are virulently anti-American. Apparently, the fact that we spilled our young soldiers’ blood to topple Saddam Hussein did not enter into the equation.

The more religious (majority) Shiite coalition who had ruled immediately subsequent to our military victory was unable to deal with the political maneuvering involved, and the secular political party with the most Sunni support, led by Ayad Allawi, was bypassed as well.

Mr. Maliki’s new parliamentary majority will also include the Kurds bloc of votes, and the Kurds are expected to demand their own concessions as well.

Meanwhile, a decision will soon be required about whether to maintain the U.S. military presence in the country as the current agreement calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops by the end of 2011. Mr. Sadr is fervently opposed to extending the deadline because he views them as a force of occupation.