The lead article in today’s New York Times, “New Poll Finds Drop in Support for Afghan War,” provides reinforcement for what many Americans already knew — that the war in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly unpopular among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Republican presidential candidates, normally hawkish, have already moved to criticize the war, with the opportunistic Newt Gingrich stating flatly that we should leave. The most recent poll shows that 69 percent of Americans think we should not be at war there.

Afghanistan is famous as the place where empires come to die. We have already accomplished our main goal, decimating the Taliban and getting rid of Osama bin Laden, and so we should leave. Our time in Afghanistan was not totally wasted, as many seem to think, because we did accomplish our mission.

And we achieved many other noble things, too, improving education, formerly non-existent, for Afghan girls and trying to root out corruption in the central government, though we were less successful at the latter.

We will never remake Afghanistan into a Western-style democracy, and it’s time to face up to that fact. One can only hope that we’ve planted some seeds that will eventually take root and transform the country, solving many of the developmental and social problems that still exist today.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Islamist Victors in Egypt Seeking Shift by Hamas,” provides hope for a new push for Middle East peace as the dynamics of the relationships in the region are being transformed.

The Arab Spring has brought the Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, into power in Egypt, but despite the anti-Muslim prejudices of certain U.S. conservative groups, the Brotherhood is shifting its positions to a more responsible configuration upon gain control of the government.

First of all, the Brotherhood is now supporting a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the two Palestinian entities governing the Gaza Strip and West Bank respectively. Previously, the Brotherhood solely supported Hamas, the more radical of the two organizations.

Then, with a push from the Egyptian government, which had previously blindly supported Israel, the hope is that Israel will return to the negotiating table.

The only caveat is the Israeli reluctance to negotiate with a united Palestinian government, primarily because the bloody history of Hamas still rankles Israeli leaders.

But there are signs that Hamas is moderating its positions based upon the new power of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that originally gave birth to the Hamas sect.

As usual in the Middle East, opportunities can be lost in a sea of acrimony and misunderstandings. One hopes that all sides are sufficiently tired of war and conflict, and that they are able to grasp their common humanity to make bold moves for peace.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Simulation Forecasts Perils of Strike at Iran,” describes a perilous situation should Israel initiate a military attack aimed at Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The twice yearly war game, known as Internal Look, predicted a situation where Iran might retaliate by sinking a U.S. warship in the Gulf, potentially killing hundreds of Americans. A broader, regional war would then ensue.

While Pentagon officials stressed the provisional nature of this scenario, it does provide a sobering look at the volatile nature of an unplanned and out-of-control conflict. While many military planners stressed that Iran might show restraint in order to avoid a full-scale war on its own territory, this war game evolved into a more dangerous potential conflict.

The simulation is particularly alarming because the likelihood of an Israel strike is increasing by the day, and many think that the tiny nation would give little-to-no warning to the United States.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates continue to talk about Iran in a bellicose manner. Devoid of any real responsibilities, especially for the deaths of American youth, they are almost glib in their desire to attack the nation.

How this situation will evolve remains to be seen, but let’s just say I am glad the President is Mr. Obama.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Drones at Issue as U.S. Rebuilds Ties to Pakistan,” depicts the secret drone program against militants in Waziristan as a major obstacle to mending relations.

Pakistan rightly objects to the violations of its sovereignty, and an errant strike in November killed 24 civilians. As a result, Pakistan closed the NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, an especially worrisome development given the recent problems with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai.

Mr. Karzai is also upset with us, though for a different reason: the rampage by a U.S. staff sergeant killing 16 Afghan civilians, a majority of whom were women and children. That incident has compounded other recent events, including the accidental burning of several Korans.

The Pakistani situation is complicated as well with a shooting by a “rogue” CIA agent and the recently assassination of Osama bin Laden, an event that also required the violation of Pakistani airspace.

So, it seems like the United States is in hot water on both sides of the border. Pakistan will be holding a special legislative session to discuss diplomatic relations with the United States, and we desperately need to mend some fences. But, as the article notes, the drone program is highly effective and will not be up for negotiation.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Karzai Insisting on U.S. Pullback to Bases by 2013,” represents one of the more serious aspects of the fallout between Afghanistan and the United States after an Army officer snuck out of camp and killed 16 Afghan civilians.

Coming so quickly after the burning of the Koran, the rampage seems to be the catalyst for a final break between the two countries with the Afghan President basically saying enough is enough. He now wants foreign forces confined to their bases a year earlier than planned, and only to go out when necessary for support.

It must be very hard to have an occupying force in your own country, and being told that your citizens cannot defend themselves. We should not underestimate the humiliation this situation causes and be sensitive to the clearly stated requests of our host country.

It’s unclear at this point how much good our troops are doing in Afghanistan anyway, and Vice President Biden seems to have been correct in his assessment that we should stick to counterterrorism instead of counterinsurgency.

With Osama bin Laden now dead and the forces of Al Qaeda decimated, there is no longer a national security rationale for staying in Afghanistan and losing more young Americans. Accelerating the withdrawal process would be a hidden blessing for us.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Officials in U.S. Debate Speeding Afghan Pullout,” describes a rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and possible American responses to new facts on the ground.

The dynamics of the U.S. and Afghan relationship have been battered in the past couple of weeks with the burning of the Koran by U.S. troops, pictures of soldiers urinating on dead Taliban fighters, and the most recent incident, a U.S. Army officer flipping out and killing 16 Afghan civilians as they lay sleeping in their own homes. The dead included many women and children as well.

There are currently 90,000 U.S. troops in the country with 22,000 due to return home in September. The raging debate in Washington concerns what to do with the remaining 68,000. Vice President Biden, who had earlier recommended the withdrawal of as many as possible with the remainder focused on a narrow counterterrorism mission, seems to have had the right idea. The Afghan people are inflamed against us and at a certain point, we may just be doing more harm than good. How can we operate in an atmosphere of trust with our Afghan counterparts when there is a good chance of one of them committing a revenge killing?

Sometimes, you need to overrule the commanders on the ground, whose sole focus is military victory, and who consider anything else to be a failure.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy,” shows the difficulty of dealing with a third-world government with first-world expectations.

The American policy is built on providing a central government in Kabul as a credible alternative to the Taliban. But that same central government is consumed by pervasive bribery and corruption, with seemingly no enforcement.

It is shocking to realize that soldiers in Afghanistan typically die from routine infections because they do not have the money to bribe hospital officials to receive the drugs they so desperately need. Meanwhile, American efforts to support the Afghan healthcare system regularly founder because billions of dollars in drugs are stolen.

The central bank in Kabul provides perhaps the most visible evidence of corruption, as one of the officials has used bank funds as personal assets to buy a villa under his name in Dubai. Yet there has not been one instance of a high-level legal case brought against anyone connected with the bank.

Now, with our Afghan partners incensed over the burning of the Koran, there is even less opportunity to press for the most basic elements of enforcement. This makes the central government seem like a joke to the average Afghan citizen and makes the Taliban into a strict, yet credible, alternative.

The lead article in the New York Times this morning, “Loose War Talk Only Helps Iran, President Says,” describes Mr. Obama’s speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and his valid criticism of Republican opponents who are politicizing critical issues of war and peace.

While the President noted that he would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon under any circumstances, he also criticized his Republican opponents for endangering U.S. security by talking up the issue, one he views as critical to national security. By pushing the need for war, Republicans are driving up the price of oil, thus benefiting Iran’s economy and their resources to create a nuclear weapon in the first place.

U.S. intelligence services, on two separate occasions, found no specific indication to weaponize in Iran’s pursuit of civilian nuclear power, but the President specifically kept the military option on the table. On the other hand, he noted that war should always be a last option and conveyed the sorrow he felt when putting young Americans in harm’s way. War is a terrible thing, and its effect on military families is often irreparable. This is the right attitude to have about war for it is based in reality instead of some Washingtonian or political calculation.

Kudos to the President for having the guts to both confront Iran and the warmongers at the same time.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Syria Military Routs Rebels in Stronghold,” describes a victory for President Bashar al-Assad in his relentless campaign to crush opponents to his rule.

Rebel forces had been holding out in the Syrian city of Homs, but they folded yesterday in the face of overwhelming firepower by the government troops. Syrian tanks now patrol the streets, and the Army will probably continue its campaign against other rebel strongholds in an effort to totally extinguish the uprising.

Even though the population is only about 10 percent Alawite, President Assad’s sect, the officer corps of his armed forces are almost totally Alawite and have been convinced that they face annihilation should Assad step down from power.

Analysts have called this the “cohesion of the elites,” and it makes Syria markedly different from other countries in the Arab spring. The number of Army defections are believed to be no different than that caused by any armed conflict.

This turn of developments should make the world aware that there is nothing inevitable about the success of the Arab spring. Demonstrators, no matter how noble their cause, do not always win. Iran and China provide clear examples of the ability of authoritarian government to hang onto power.

If we want the Syrian demonstrators to win, we will have to find some way to support them beyond what we are already doing.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “North Koreans Agree to Freeze Nuclear Efforts,” describes a surprise agreement by the new leader of the country, Kim Jong-un, to suspend nuclear and long-range missile testing, and to allow the entry of nuclear inspectors into the country, in exchange for massive food aid (more than 200,000 tons) from the United States.

The North Korean nuclear program remains shrouded in mystery as inspectors have been barred from the country for more than five years. North Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009 and is believed to have enriched enough uranium for six-to-eight bombs.

Whether this initial agreement leads to a reversal of policy for the North Korean government, to forego the nuclear option in its entirety, remains to be seen. However, this successful first step provides a critical victory for President Obama in a election year and indicates that the new North Korean government may be willing to deal with the United States.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised this step forward while cautioning that much more remains to be determined. In the past, North Korea has approved interim arrangements but let more substantive talks fail in an atmosphere of acrimony. In fact, Kim Jong-un made some bellicose statements just a few days ago.