The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan Envisions Exit.” It describes the strategy on Afghanistan he will outline in his speech on the topic tomorrow night at West Point.

According to the article, the speech will include details on an exit strategy, though no specific deadlines, and benchmarks for the Aghan government to meet including a reduction in internal corruption and a surge in the Afghan army. The leaks have already drawn attacks from both the left and the right, with the right attacking even an unspecified deadline, and the left protesting the cost and threatening to include a surtax.

In my opinion, we should all wait to hear what the President says. He has already said that the American people will support him when he describes the details of the policy, and I expect him to make a thorough and compelling case. President Obama has shown a talent for speaking above the heads of the politicians and pundits and addressing the American people directly,  as he did during the campaign on the issue of race.

The speech on Tuesday night should be required watching for all civic-minded individuals, and we should avoid looking at it through a partisan lens.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments.” It describes the cost of financing the government’s debt and a pending disaster as interest rates rise and the baby boomers retire.

The article notes that the current national debt is more than $12 trillion, and the cost of servicing the debt is more than $700 billion, a rise of $500 billion from last year, equal to the combined budget for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unfortunate situation ultimately comes back to the recent financial meltdown and the effort of the U.S. government to avoid total disaster by passing the stimulus program. However, the surge of spending it required, could have major ramifications as the United States now tries to move back to a more normal situation.

The article notes that the government will have major difficulties doing so due to the lack of personal wealth from consumers still mired in debt, and often unemployed now, too, as well as the demands on social security when the baby boomers retire. This is also exacerbated by an anticipated rise in interest rates that will make the continued borrowing required in servicing the debt even more expensive.

Not a cheerful thought on a Monday morning, but call me an optimist, I think the United States will muddle through somehow. If any country can, it will be this one.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “New Consensus Views Stimulus as Worthy Step.” It describes the reaction of non-partisan analysts in evaluating the stimulus. They largely agree that the package worked well and that the unemployment rate would be even higher without it.

Though the Obama prediction of 8 percent unemployment was exceeded, these economists believe it could have been as high as 11 percent without it.  Plus the economy was in “free fall” when the package was enacted, and things have largely pulled back from the brink since then.

This is good news for the Obama administration currently mired in the health care debate. Republicans are accusing President Obama of focusing on the major item on his agenda, healthcare, as opposed to the major item on the agenda of the American people, jobs.

While economists feel that the stimulus package could have been more front-loaded to create more jobs, more quickly, perhaps through infrastructure projects or other forms of support that get spent immediately, such as food stamps or unemployment checks, it is always good to see a non-partisan group support President Obama, because these days he really needs it.

Side note: As I write this blog entry, the Democrats have just won the first test vote on healthcare in the U.S. Senate. Kudos, President Obama!

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Drug Companies Increase Prices in Face of Change.” It describes an increase in prescription drug prices of about 9 percent per year despite promises by the drug industry to cut up to $8 billion to help contain the rise in healthcare costs. A future cut will now bring the prices back to their current level.

The rise in prices contrasts with the Consumer Price Index, where costs have fallen by 1.3 percent.

While industry executives attribute the rise to the expensive research process involved in developing new drugs, a Harvard economist documented a similar rise in prices before Congress added drug benefits to Medicare.

In my opinion, this development depicts a common problem with unregulated capitalism. Companies will always try to maximize profits and only later develop a rationale should that effort come under public scrutiny. Just like banks used bailout money for extravagant bonuses, the healthcare industry will always try to anticipate the costs of upcoming regulations and act to either get ahead of the curve or find a loophole.

These actions by the drug companies emphasize all the more the need for effective federal regulation. Right now, the average annual cost for a daily prescription drug can rise as high as $2,000.

No wonder some people are faced with an intolerable choice between medicine and food.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Envoy Expresses Doubt on Forces for Afghanistan. ” It describes a report by the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Elkenberry, that contradicts the request by General McChrtstal for 40,000 new troops.

The report expresses reservations about including any new troops at all, even going beyond the stance by Vice President Joe Biden. In fact, the recommendation seems to be getting the attention of President Obama who has reportedly been getting cold feet regarding a troop increase. He is particularly concerned about the way to measure progress and the exit strategy.

I also think that Mr. Obama’s recent trip to Dover airforce base and a visit to a special section of Arlington Cemetary — where the deceased soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are buried — has driven home his ultimate responsibility for both wars.

Frankly, I’m glad he is reconsidering.  Afghanistan has been a quagmire for colonists for hundreds of years, and there’s no specific reason why we should be the exception to the rule. It is only hubris to think we are different.

In fact, Afghanistan is not really a nation state at all. It is a collection of tribal warlords compounded by the inevitable corruption of the drug trade. The country is only one step ahead of Somalia in terms of its national integration.

So kudos President Obama for your continuing study of the situation.

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, “G.O.P. Wins Two Key Governors’ Races; Bloomberg Prevails in a Close Contest.” It describes the results of Election Day yesterday and also notes that the Democrat won in an unusual Congressional race in upstate New York.

Although the results could be interpreted as a doubleheader Republican win in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, most voters expressed little connection with President Obama in making their decision. However, the race in New York did have national implications; it was the first step in a civil war among Republicans between the far right and more moderate branches of the Party.

One other concerning aftereffect could involve the moderate Senators considering the healthcare bill. If they interpret the election on a national basis, it could affect their willingness to support a public option and other more liberal planks in healthcare legislation, including planks on immigrants and abortion.

The election results, combined with a possible delay in healthcare legislation until 2010, does not bode well for the Democratic Party. Delay is more corrosive than anything in stopping healthcare reform as was illustrated during the town halls meetings over the summer.

So, here’s the takeaway from the elections. Don’t draw conclusions where they don’t exist, but be very worried about the conclusions that get drawn.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Out of Race, Karzai Rival is Harsh Critic of Election.” It describes the withdrawal of Abdullah Abdullah from the Presidential runoff election in Afghanistan. The former Foreign Minister of the country, Mr. Abdullah withdrew because he claimed it would not be a fair election, and there would be at least as much fraud as the first time around.

The polls, however, suggested that Mr. Karzai would have won the election in any case, and the Obama administration moved to close ranks with him, even though their final decision on additional troops is still describes as at least three weeks away, after President Obama returns from his upcoming Asian trip.

Observers noted that President Karzai could increase his legitimacy by appointing competent ministers to his new cabinent who would fight systemic corruption and try to extend governance from Kabul throughout the entire nation. Meanwhile, Republicans continued to criticize President Obama for the length of time he is taking in considering a request for 40,000 more troops from General Stanley McChrystal.

In my opinion, it is refreshing to see the amount of study and deliberation from President Obama, a process that stands in marked contrast to the bluster and gut decisions of the Bush administration. I anticipate a nuanced approach that will go far beyond the number of troops and will evaluate benchmarks of progress, a clear mission and an exit strategy. Take your time, President Obama, it is enlightening to see how much you value the lives of young soldiers who will hang in the balance.