The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Document Leak Adds to Pressure on White House,” describes continuing fallout on the release of classified military papers showing continuing ties between the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, and the militants the United States is fighting in Afghanistan. The revelation shows the ineffectiveness of American aid to Pakistan in encouraging a counterterrorism operation by the Pakistani government.

The documents also describe other failures in the Afghan war and are starting to increase Democratic opposition to the policy in Congress. The Democratic leadership, who supports our current policy of short-term escalation of the troops, is rushing to hold a vote on a war-financing bill before the rank and file insist on a more thorough evaluation.

The release of the documents has initiated a review of the war earlier than the Obama administration had hoped, initially scheduled for the end of this year. Meanwhile, mounting U.S. casualties in the conflict are making matters even worse.

There was some criticism of the organization that published the documents, WikiLeaks, but they claim to have redacted all sensitive information, as did The New York Times who subsequently published the piece. In fact, the Administration’s quarrel seems to be more with the content of the documents, contravening the effectiveness of their troop increase and aid to Pakistan, than the actual fact they were published in the first place.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Pakistani Spy Unit Aiding Insurgents, Reports Suggest,” describes a double-dealing attitude by, at the very least, many former members of the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency, to help the Taliban and other militants attack U.S. forces.

While the Pakistani government strongly denies any current involvement — they are recipients of billions of dollars in U.S. aid — these new documents suggest otherwise. A pattern seems to be emerging with one stance in public and another on the ground.

The United States is in a delicate situation because it wishes to maintain its semi-legal drone attacks that have been so successful against Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and that the Pakistani government seems to be willing to permit, at least in an informal capacity. But what are we to do when the money we use to support the Pakistani government ends up being used to fight our own troops?

The documents the Times has unearthed include a damning portrait of a former head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, with longstanding, and U.S.-condoned, relationships with the mujahedeen who were supported by the United States when they were fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But the mujahedeen transformed themselves into the Taliban.

All this has increased tensions between the American military and Pakistani soldiers, an ominous development in itself. There must be some resolution to this situation if our fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is to succeed.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Afghan Program Adds Local Units to Resist Taliban,” describes a new program pushed through by General Petraeus to create local defense forces to maintain order in remote Afghan villages.

The forces are loosely modeled after the self-policing instituted in Iraq after the Sunni Awakening and are designed to provide order in areas of the country where there are no NATO forces, Afghan Army or national Afghan police.

The new forces will be paid through the Interior Ministry and provided with arms and uniforms. Joining the force is expected to be popular because there are few jobs in the Afghan economy. However, there are a number of concerns.

President Karzai had previously resisted the formation of Afghan local police because he is afraid they will turn into militias with tribal loyalties and little to none for the central Afghan government. He is hoping that payment through the Interior Ministry will obviate this concern.

Secondly, there is the perpetual concern about corruption among police forces. This is a problem throughout Afghan society. And finally, bitter thoughts linger about so-called local forces set up during rule by the Soviet Union.

Still, the article provides hope if only because the idea is the brainchild and will be implemented by General Petraeus. He seemed to have that special touch to rescue us in Iraq and maybe, God willing, he will have so again.

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, “Obama Fires Afghan Commander, Citing Need for Unity in the War,” is a banner headline describing the President’s decision to relieve General Stanley McChrystal after he made disparaging remarks about the administration in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

The President’s decision was framed as reasserting a central element of our democracy, civilian control of the military, and avoided any reaction to statements personally insulting to him. His selection to replace General McChrystal, is General David Petraeus, the popular military leader who successfully executed our Iraq strategy during the surge.

President Obama made the correct decision. General McChrystal had been warned about insubordination before, so this wasn’t just a careless mistake. And the President was also fair in giving General McChrystal an opportunity to explain himself in a 20-minute one-on-one meeting in the White House. According to the article, General McChrystal did not try to lobby for his job.

Perhaps, this is all for the best. David Petraeus, though he was technically General McChrystal’s boss and is taking a demotion to the new post, will now be focusing solely on the most critical situation our nation faces. His ability to assess the situation on the front line and suggest suitable tactics on a day-by-day basis, his operational skills, will clearly be a major asset for our country.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “General’s Job is in Doubt in Exposing Afghan Rifts,” describes the results of an explosive interview in Rolling Stone magazine detailing widespread backbiting between General McChrystal and his staff with President Obama and other senior White House officials.

Ranging from a play on Vice President Biden’s last name — “Bite Me” — to criticism of the President as disengaged and/or intimidated by military brass, the magazine article resulted in the General’s immediate recall to the White House for an interview to determine whether he would keep his job.

It seems only the crucial timing of the Afghan campaign could save it.

Speculation is rife as to what would make the General so careless in front of a reporter. He had been warned previously about impolitic statements, and one also wonders why he gave a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine, of all publications, such access to his opinions and inner staff meetings. (definitely needs some better PR advisors)

I believe the General doesn’t really want to keep his job. He must have known the furor his remarks would cause, and the fact that the Afghan war seems to be failing would be a major reason to get out before it goes down in flames. The initiatives in Marja and Kandahar seem to be stalled, and the Afghan government is still riddled with corruption.

We shall see what happens in the White House meeting this morning.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Identifies Mineral Riches in Afghanistan,” represents one of the few times this newspaper has actually uncovered a surprise story. Its facts go beyond a few deposits here and there as they convey an amazing amount and variety of riches that could actually transform the country.

Geologists have described the results as truly amazing with huge veins of copoper, iron, gold and lithium scattered throughout the country. The amount of iron and copper alone are described as so huge that they would make Afghanistan a “major world producer of both.”

How did all this go undiscovered for so long? Well, apparently the Soviet Union conducted preliminary research while they were occupying the country, then Afghan geologists hid the maps during the Taliban’s reign. In 2006, the United States Geological Survey conducted its own aerial survey, and they were so impressed that they flew over the country to conduct three-dimensional imaging.

Experts say that the amount of deposits would easily dwarf the country’s current reliance on narcotics and that international bidding on the mineral rights could take place very soon. Meanwhile, the U.S. is trying to set up the internal infrastructure so Afghanistan can manage the situation.

Imagine Afghanistan as a rich country with modern facilities and a prosperous citenzry. Truly, many of the last shall be first.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Karzai is Said to Doubt West can Defeat Taliban,” describes the continuing friction between the leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and the U.S. troops supposedly fighting on his behalf.

The article notes the resignation of two senior Afghanistan officials, Amrullah Saleh of the intelligence services and Hanif Atmar, the interior minister. Both had advocated a hard line against the Taliban, and U.S. forces viewed their departure as extremely “disruptive.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Karzai is supposedly making overtures to Taliban leaders and has also ordered the review of every Taliban fighter currently held in custody, with a view to releasing those who had been incorrectly detained. Mr. Karzai is also an ethnic Pashtun, the tribe from which the Taliban draws its most strength.

According to the article, the friction between the U.S. and Mr. Karzai began after the recent elections, viewed as widely corrupt by Western observers. However, Mr. Karzai felt the criticism robbed him of his legitimacy.

Now, he views the U.S. offensive as impossible to succeed and is thus trying to fend for himself. His overtures also include the government of Pakistan, a prior enemy also.

All this does not bode well for our continuing presence in the country. One wonders whether the best alternative is to speed up our departure.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, titled “An Appeals Panel Denies Detainees U.S. Court Access,” describes a decision to deny habeas corpus rights to three prisoners held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan since 2003. The federal appeals court failed to extend a similar ruling regarding detainees at Guanatanamo Bay in Cuba, reasoning that it was on sovereign territory of another country and in an active combat zone.

The ruling does make common sense and indicates the limits of our democracy beyond our shores. Just as we can’t impose our system of government on other nations, we can’t impose our jurisprudence on them either, even if they want it. During active conflict, our enemies can’t claim the same rights as United States citizens living in U.S. territories.

Lawyers for the detainees stated that the ruling would allow us to kidnap anyone and hold them indefinitely overseas. The problem with this line of argument lies in the initial assumption. We don’t have the right to kidnap anyone. That’s what extradition hearings address. And in a war, we can’t always be concerned about upholding legal standards of evidence.

Now, I’m a solid supporter of the ACLU and believe strongly that the Bush administration attempted to trample upon civil rights. But there are limits to all tenets of our democracy and to extend them too far would ultimately have the opposite effect and create an adverse backlash.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “U.S. Elite Units Step Up Effort in Afghan City,” describes the coming U.S. offensive against the largest city in Southern Afghanistan, Kandahar. The action comes after the Allied forces conquered Marja and installed a local Afghan government meant to pacify and gain the support of the local populace.

But the operation against Marja has undergone recent reverses as the Taliban have reinsinuated their forces and terrorized the local population. Afghan officials believe the United States must have a workable model in Marja before attacking Kandahar, and they don’t yet.

The battle for Kandahar will be different from Marja according to U.S. generals. It will involve a slowly rising tide of military activity instead of a “quick punch.” To this effect, U.S. special forces are increasing their actions in the city.

In my opinion, this all doesn’t sound very encouraging. The inability to hold a smaller city such as Marja does not portend well for the offensive against Afghanistan. And if the local population of Kandahar sees the Taliban reprisals in Marja, they will be all the less likely to cooperate with a newly installed U.S. government, even if that government is composed of Afghan locals.

I do hope very much for a U.S. victory, but there are a lot of discouraging facts in this article.