The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Urges Iraqis to Try New Plan to Share Power,” provides a smidgen of hope for all those hoping Iraq will emerge as a functioning, if slightly flawed, democracy.

The article describes a plan by the United States to form a coalition government through a game of “reverse musical chairs.” That is, they would create new positions in order to include Ayad Allawi, the rival of the current prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and the Kurdish alliance. This would be designed to break the six-month stalemate since the close election that has resulted in paralysis and exacerbated the ability of the government to provide basic services, such as uninterrupted electricity, to its citizens.

Though professing neutrality, it seems that the United States favors Ayad Allawi, and his secular/Sunni party, to rule with Mr. Maliki instead of the religious Shiite party favored by Iran. The result of the negotiations may provide some indication of the influence of Iran on its neighbor as opposed to the United States, who, don’t forget, is withdrawing troops and its ability to influence Iraq with them.

While a six-month gap without a functioning government may seem impossible to the United States, we should remember that life moves at a different pace in the Arab world. However, there is one other concern: while all this is going on, Mr. Maliki remains in power, and there is something to be said for a peaceful transfer of power instead of perpetuating his rule.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Obama Declares an End to Iraq Combat Mission,” discusses a welcome conclusion to our combat mission in Iraq, marked by a Presidential address from the Oval Office. President Obama officially marked a milestone last night, the end of the military venture called Operation Iraqi Freedom that needlessly cost thousands of young American lives.

The President also emphasized again his vow to draw down from Afghanistan as well next summer, saying an endless war there helped neither Afghanistan nor the United States, and that the Afghans must learn to fend for themselves.

The President provided a forceful argument about the need to stop spending trillions overseas when our own domestic economy remains in tatters, with so many suffering through long-term unemployment. His sanity provides a welcome refreshment to the recalcitrance of the Bush administration to ending our overseas adventurism.

Yet the President showed a touch of class about the previous administration as well. He praised the patriotism of George W. Bush and even called him from Air Force One to mark the milestone. Of course, the Iraq War, and Barack Obama’s criticism of it, provided the initial boost to his Presidential campaign.

A breath of fresh air and sanity from the White House, thank God.

The lead article in The New York Times this morning, “Civilians to Take U.S. Lead After Military Leaves Iraq,” describes a wholesale transfer of Army functions to diplomatic control and, as such, calls into question the plans to totally leave Iraq by the end of 2011 as currently planned.

The article includes some sobering statistics: 1,200 specific tasks carried out by the military will be transferred to the State Department and other civilian entities such as security contractors; the State Department will increase its fleet of armored vehicles to 1,320, 6,000 to 7,000 contractors will provide quick reaction forces, etc.

In addition, the State Department will open two new diplomatic embassies in Mosul and Kirkuk and will be responsible for maintaining the peace between Kurds and Arabs. The cost for all these plans is in the billions.

In addition, the article calls into question the ability of the State Department to carry out some of the chores it will be tasked to fulfill. For example, State Department diplomats have no skills in training the Iraqi police force and transferring their functions from counterinsurgency to crime control.

This issue is taboo among Obama administration officials because it calls into question our ability to extricate ourselves from messy military assignments overseas — e.g., Afghanistan.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Obama Reaffirms Pullout from Iraq is on Schedule,” describes the President’s promise to withdraw combat troops from the country by the end of August, and his fulfillment of that vow.

The President is kicking off a month-long campaign to celebrate, if that’s the proper word, the completion of the withdrawal. Of course, Mr. Obama’s entire Presidential campaign was built around a withdrawal from Iraq, and his ability to draw progressive Democratic voters by maneuvering to the left of Hillary on the issue.

The Iraq War truly has been a national tragedy. We got into it under false pretenses, and now more than 4,000 Americans have died as a result. I don’t know how Mr. Bush can live with that on his conscience.

Meanwhile, current debate continues to swirl around Afghanistan. More than 102 Democrats voted against a funding measure for that conflict, up more than 70 from a year before. And even President Obama has defined his objectives downward, to destroy Al Qaeda instead of creating a fully functioning democracy.

The paradox is that the President’s greatest supporters on the Afghanistan War are Republicans who are doing everything they can to defeat him. Perhaps, if the President realizes that and stops to ponder why, we can end this “good” war just like we’re ending Iraq.

The lead article in this morning’s New York Times, “A Benchmark of Progress, Electrical Grid Fails Iraqis,” describes the inability of Iraq’s government to provide basic services to its people, especially reliable electrical power for their homes. The article notes that in the nation’s capital, Baghdad, this July, most people received only five hours of electrical power per day. In a country where temperatures can reach 120 degrees, that represents one of the most basic needs of the people.

The article notes a new Iraqi curse, “Maku Kahraba” — there is no electricity — and ascribes the failure to a variety of reasons, including an incompetent Iraqi government, corruption and terrorist attacks, but most prominently the government. There is still no functioning Parliament five months after the recent national elections. And 56 turbines/generators purchased from General Electric two years ago remains stalled amid political quarreling about the financing.

Terrorists also like to target electrical towers in their continuing effort to disrupt Iraqi society, and, with the Americans leaving and winding up “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” many of the electricity-related projects they initiated are being handed over to less competent Iraqi authorities or just abandoned.

No one knows how much this failure results from the mismanagement of Iraq after our invasion of 2003, but one wonders whether a more competent President could have prioritized matters in a different way to get Iraq back on its feet. Instead, we were faced with a total breakdown of Iraqi order including widespread looting and nearly a civil war. The U.S. legacy to Iraq, aside from a barely functioning democracy, remains badly tarnished.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Former Premier Wins Narrowly in Iraq Election,” describes the victory of Ayad Allawi,  a secular candidate, over the current prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who is more closely aligned with Shiite religious parties and Iran.

The victory, by two seats, will make it very difficult for Mr. Allawi to form a coalition government, and Mr. Maliki has been claiming fraud and making references to his role as commander in chief of Iraq’s armed forces.

Nevertheless, the current result seems to be holding, raising the possibility of a phenomenal, non-violent transfer of power, generally reserved to much more stable countries such as the United States and Western Europe.

Mr. Maliki’s defeat was largely based on his inability to provide security, and though he won in Baghdad and its sovereign provinces, he lost in the northern regions, among Sunnis and, surprisingly, ran very weakly in Kirkuk, where oil reserves remain a major point of contention.

It would be fabulous if Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki could work out a transfer of power, and it would send shock waves throughout the Middle East, where people are generally dominated by much more authoritarian governments. The possible change in policy itself would be amazing as Mr. Allawi is much more anti-American and anti-Iran at the same time.

Time will tell, but there seems to be a glimmer of hope.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iraqis Defy Blasts in Strong Turnout for Pivotal Vote,” describes the events during yesterday’s national elections in Iraq. Despite up to 100 blasts in the Baghdad region alone, the Iraqi people went to the polls in droves yesterday to cast votes.

The election results were dominated by supporters of Prime Minister Maliki and Ayad Allawi, a former leader of Iraq. But the process was open, and nearly all sectors of Iraqi society participated, including Sunnis and followers of Moktada Al-Sadr. This, in itself, was amazing.

The successful conclusion of the election, although coalitions remain to be formed, gave President Obama the space he needs to continue the pullout of U.S. forces. And though this election was marred by a lot of violence, order was kept by national Iraqi forces, not U.S. troops.

Even loudspeakers at mosques encouraged Iraqis to vote, a complete turnaround from just a few short years ago when the country seemed to be on the brink of civil war.

Perhaps, Al Sadr described the situation the best when he said, “Participation in the election is a sort of political resistance.” This statement emphasizes the ability to change leaders by the ballot box instead of the gun and shows how far the Iraqis have come.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died.” It describes an attempt by high-level Blackwater executives to avoid responsibility for the indiscriminate murder of 17 Iraqis in Nisour Square by their employees.

Gary Jackson, Blackwater’s President, who refused comment for the article, apparently approved the bribes and had the money sent from Amman, Jordan, to Iraqi officials even while Blackwater’s Vice Chairman, Cofer Black, was negotiating compensatory payments to the vicitims.

Blackwater certainly had an incentive to pay the bribes. They had garnered a total  of almost $1.5 billion from protecting diplomatic personnel. And they were operating in Iraq without a license.

This level of corruption  goes beyond the pale. American business firms typically adapt to the cultures where they operate and grease some palms, but not where murder is involved, not to mention 17 deaths.

At the time, Americans were widely perceived as occupiers, and Blackwater’s attempt at bribery actually hurt national security in this respect. At least Blackwater is no longer involved in Iraq today.

And Blackwater also now finds itself in legal jeopardy. Even though at the time the participants were immune from Iraqi law, there are cases pending in U.S. courts, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans bribes to foreign officials.

Despite it all, I still think Blackwater will receive justice in the end.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Deadliest Bombs Since ’07 Shatter Iraqi Complexes.” It describes two simultaneous suicide bombings yesterday at the Iraqi Justice Ministry and a provincial council area. As of publication, 132 people were dead and more than 520 wounded. The bombings were particularly troubling because they occurred at high-profile government buildings and because the bombers were able to pass through multiple checkpoints.

The article goes on to note that the Foreign and Finance Ministries had already been bombed in August, and this recent event has thrown a wrench into the plans of Prime Minister Maliki. He is in the midst of campaigning for the national elections in January and has tried to present the image of having turned the corner on all the past violence. He had already been removing many of the barricades around Baghdad before this bombing occurred.

The article paints an especially vivid picture of the event, at one point noting that a water main had broken, and when mixed with all the blood, it had created red pools all around the area.

Unfotunately, I don’t find these events particularly surprising. I have empathy for the people of Iraq and that troubled land, but I don’t think there’s anything the United States can do, short of becoming more involved in that quagmire of human suffering and misery. The Iraqi people must work out their own destiny, and one can only hope that events like yesterday will increase their resolve to root out those whose only real goal is to spread anarchy and hatred.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “U.S. Shifts, Giving Detainees’ Names to the Red Cross.” It describes a new policy by the Pentagon to notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the names of new prisoners in its Secret Operations camps. These are two camps, one each in Iraq and Afghanistan, that were the last holdouts from reversals of Bush administration policy into a more open situation in accordance with international law.

The change in policy represents one of a number of developments this week related to C.I.A. practices. The C.I.A. will be releasing a 2004 report by its Inspector General on the Agency’s interrogation program. The report is highly critical and reportedly includes instances of threatening prisoners by using a power drill and mock executions. An additional development will be an expected decision by Attorney General Eric Holder about appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate interrogations that occurred after 9/11.

In my opinion, all these events will be painful for the United States as a country to endure, primarily because of the high ideals and standards we all hold. But they are absolutely necessary to prevent future transgressions. Only by exposing our actions to world opinion can we achieve the catharsis required to make them more unlikely in the future. If there is no punitive action, future administrations under stressful situations may be tempted to take the same actions, and maybe even more.

So, yes, it is important for us to move forward as President Obama wishes, but we also have an obligation to pursue some of the difficult admissions that will occur this week.