The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Pulling Back in Afghan Valley It Called Crucial,” describes a retreat by U.S. forces that the Taliban will tout as a great victory.

More than 103 U.S. troops have died protecting the Pech Valley in eastern Afghanistan, and the military has decided to withdraw from the area “to better protect Afghan civilians in the cities.” They are predictably calling the move a “redeployment.”

However, as the article notes, it was the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from the Pech Valley that was the immediate precursor to their defeat, and though one hopes the same situation will not be true for the United States, it’s not as if our war effort is undergoing any stunning successes.

The article also notes that this decision will create “reverse safe havens” for Al Qaeda, Taliban and other militant forces. Just as Pakistan has served as a safe haven from pursuing U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the Pech Valley may serve as a safe haven from pursuing Pakistani Army forces. I’m not a military man, but it seems like the safe havens are multiplying, definitely not a good sign.

It is possible that Afghan forces alone will be able to maintain security in the Pech Valley, but one Afghan troop described it as “a suicide mission.”

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, “Pakistanis Tell of Motive in Taliban Leader’s Arrest,” show how Pakistan has been taking our money and tending to its own power politics at the same time.

The story describes how the ISI, Pakistani’s intelligence service, had been protecting the Taliban but then got upset when the militants started negotiating with the Afghanistan government in a freelance manner without keeping the Pakistanis informed. So Pakistan decided to arrest the Taliban’s operational leader, Abdul Baradar, and several other members of the Taliban leadership team to warn them, quote unquote — no flirting.

Meanwhile, the ISI used the C.I.A. and its more technical equipment to make the arrest, all the while keeping them in the dark about the real identity of Mr. Baradar.

The C.I.A. denies the accuracy of the story, but several experts in the United States affirm its plausibility.

The Machiavellian nature of these maneuverings, if true, demonstrate the labryinth we have become involved in overseas and our inability to control the situation as we see it. They also demonstrate how all the parties are defending themselves against loss of influence when we inevitably leave.

While Americans think in terms of years, the natives of the area are there for the long term and are taking what they believe are necessary measures for their own survival.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Pakistan is Said to Pursue an Afghanistan Foothold,” describes the current machinations and politics between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan is encouraging Hamid Karzai to incorporate the network of Haqqani fighters, a major factor in the Taliban insurgency, in a power-sharing arrangement. Pakistan has long favored the Haqqanis because they also oppose and have attacked Indian interests in Afghanistan, and India is Pakistan’s arch enemy.

Meanwhile, as the article notes, the United States could be cut out of any separate peace, and the Haqqanis are closely allied with Al Qaeda. And that’s the major reason we’re fighting in Afghanistan in the first place, to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven.

The article also notes that the Haqqanis have struggled and fought together with Al Qaeda for so long, that despite present promises, it is very unlikely the Haqqanis will separate themselves totally from Al Qaeda.

The United States has been trying to get the Pakistani government to fight against the Haqqanis to no avail.

What’s wrong with this picture? The United States is pouring billions of dollars of military aid into Pakistan, and our young soldiers are losing their lives in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Pakistan conspire behind our back to cut us out when we leave.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban’s Top Commander.” It describes the arrest of Mullah Baradar, the Taliban’s military chief, second only to its spiritual leader, Mullah Omar.

The arrest is significant because of the role played by Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency, ISI. Previously, there was some degree of sheltering and mutual assistance between ISI and the Taliban, because the Pakistanis wanted an internal ally inside of Afghanistan when the Americans eventually left.

However, recently there has been a “sea change” in cooperation between ISI and the CIA as the Pakistani government has come to view the Taliban as a threat to its own stability.

Mullah Baradar has been undergoing some extreme questioning, and, reading between the lines, it seems like the Pakistani questioners have exceeded some of the new constraints imposed by President Obama. The arrest certainly comes at an opportune time in the middle of the U.S. offensive against Marja.

There is also the continuing question of whether some more moderate elements of the Taliban could eventually negotiate with the United States in a way similar to the Sunnis in Iraq during the Great Awakening. As a whole, the Taliban refuse to accept the Afghan constitution or renounce Al Qaeda, but with the lack of a strong military leader at the top, maybe this will change.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Errant Rocket Kills Civilians in Afghanistan.” It describes the battle for Marja and a fatal error by NATO / U.S. forces in striking a civilian complex with a rocket, killing 10 civilians including five children.

The rocket came from Himars, an acronym for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. It is supposedly guided by GPS and can strike within a yard or two of the programmed location.

But this rocket missed, and the casualties are exactly the kind of event General McChrystal has emphasized that he wishes to avoid. He apologized to the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, but the damage has already been done in terms of winning hearts and minds to the U.S. cause.

The problem is that these kind of events are inevitable during the course of a heated battle. You can’t just lay down your arms or handicap yourself when faced with a determined foe.

The rest of the article provides a gripping account of the entry of Marines into Marja and the timeline of the Taliban resistance, their ability to outflank the NATO forces and employment of a sniper as well.

The U.S. has also been talking to local leaders in an effort to get a government installed as quickly as possible when the shooting stops.  This extra step to the clear, hold, build paradigm may prove to be the crucial factor in restoring order and routing the Taliban.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Taliban Assault Rattles Capital of Afghanistan.” It describes an attack by Taliban commandos right next to the Presidential palace, Ministry of Justice and Central Bank. The battle raged for up to five hours, and there was a secondary blast a few blocks away.

The ability of the Taliban to attack at will in such a secure urban area was designed to strike fear among the residents of Kabul. Generally, the Taliban is perceived as strong in rural areas, the area where the majority of American troops are located. That’s why this situation is so troubling.

The Americans are currently undertaking a program to attract Taliban militia to their side by portraying the Taliban as inevitable losers in the struggle. Such a brazen attack by the Taliban brings them favorable publicity and makes any U.S. recruitment efforts less likely to succeed.

In my opinion, the entire Afghanistan situation could easily result in a quagmire, if it hasn’t already. We are not familiar with the terrain; the local customs are foreign to us; and our increased military footprint is sure to increase resentment.

As Vice President Biden noted, the Taliban do not represent a threat to our homeland, and we would be better off just targeting Al Qaeda, located primarily in Pakistan.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Pakistan Attacks Show Tightening of Militant Links.” It describes a new alliance in Pakistan among Al Qaeda, the Taliban and local militant groups including those devoted to fighting India’s presence in Kashmir.

The article analyzes the recent takeover of the Pakistan Army headquarters as well as the assault on two Pakistani military training centers and a federal investigations building on Thursday. It found cooperation between Pakistan militant groups is increasing in a combined attempt to overthrow the government and forestall a planned government attack on Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in the Waziristan provinces.

In my opinion, this unholy alliance represents one more setback to American efforts in Pakistan. By combining their objectives against India, the United States and the civilian Pakistani government, the militant groups have become a powerful force to be reckoned with, not just guerilla bands carrying out isolated attacks. Even more ominously, the article notes that the Pakistani population supports the militant groups because they view the Americans as an occupying force.

This alliance could make it even more difficult for the Pakistani government because of its ties with the military, intelligence forces and throughout society. Leaks and inside connections will make it nearly impossible to mount a surprise attack, and militant support among the citizenry will ensure their ability to melt away into the population during any sustained operation.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Shaky Pakistan Seen as Target of Qaeda Plots.” It describes a new regional focus of Al Qaeda in Pakistan as opposed to more high-profile attacks in the United States and the West.

The article, frankly, is disturbing. According to recent intelligence, Al Qaeda seems to be work to destabilize Pakistan in light of Taliban gains in the Swat Valley and Buner. Plus the organization seems to have developed the sophistication to know when to cloak its activities and when to broadcast them. As a foreign group, their violent tactics could backfire in Pakistan so they have wreaked their havoc under the cover of regional groups.

As evidence of Al Qaeda’s presence, the article cites a truck bomb destroyed on April 19 after a U.S. Predator missile hit it. The size of the explosion indicated a significant number of explosives clearly designed for a suicide bomber.

Though the article discounts the possibility of the Taliban and Al Qaeda taking over the Pakistani government, that is the clearly expressed aim of both groups. Only the size of the Pakistani Army and the use of advanced technologies, such as the Predator drone, seem to be standing in their way.

Another benefit of Al Qaeda’s participation with Taliban regional groups involves recruiting. Apparently, as the Taliban take over more territory, Al Qaeda benefits from an increased applicant pool because they can recruit with impunity behind the Taliban lines. This additional recruiting seems to be particularly important in replacing senior Al Qaeda leadership killed off by the United States.

At least, we’re staying up to date with Al Qaeda strategy and thus can take steps to counter it.

The title of the lead story in today’s New York Times is “New Afghan Strategies for the U.S. and its Foes.” The article describes some of the preparations by the Taliban for the new 17,000 troops to be sent by President Obama.

The story provides some sobering information. Apparently, the Afghanistan faction of the Taliban, headed by Mullah Omar, sent a delegation to the Pakistani Taliban, themselves split into three separate tribes, to unify and resist the new American troops. And even more alarming, they all agreed to do so.

My main fear is that Afghanistan will become just as much of a quagmire as Iraq, even though the fight there may be more justified. Apparently, the new united front of the Taliban is preparing for a campaign of roadside bombs and suicide bombers to resist our increased presence.

And let’s not think that Democratic leaders are immune to getting trapped in foreign wars. One of the greatest tragedies of our nation occurred when President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and War on Poverty were derailed by Vietnam.

I did read yesterday about Obama’s “exit strategy” for Afghanistan, and it’s good to know this is being proactively planned before we even increase our presence. Still, many American lives may be lost in the meantime, and I am afraid for the toll this will take on our nation so soon after the bloodshed in Iraq.

In an ominous statement, the article concludes, “In confident spirits, the Taliban fighters predicted that 2009 was going to be a ‘very bloody’ year.”

Sunday’s lead story in The New York Times was titled, “Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban.” It describes, among other topics, President Obama’s comments about the war in Afghanistan in a 35-minute interview with The New York Times.

This is the kind of nuanced policy you would never see in the Bush administration. President’s idea involves reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban in the same way we reached out to moderate elements of the Sunni in Iraq.

The concept involves understanding that we are all human, and most people are not all evil or all good. There are indeed Islamic fundamentalists who eschew some of the tactics of Al Qaeda, often including the ruthless indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

Whether the concept will work remains to be seen. Later on in the article, it is noted that there are many tribes in Afghanistan, each with a “fierce” independence and often working against each other. Also, in Afghanistan, the central government is weaker.

All Americans should be concerned about the resurgence of the Taliban, especially in Pakistan, where the central government has ceded a vast region of the country to the Taliban in the Swat valley.

Pakistan claims it is designed to create a conflict between the local, less radical fundamentalists and the Taliban. President Obama is currently in the midst of a policy review on Pakistan as well.

Anyway, it’s good to know there’s someone thinking hard about these problems, for a change, and considering new approaches.