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 article in today’s New York Times, “U.N. Approves New Sanctions to Deter Iran,” describes the fourth time the United Nations has imposed restrictions designed to dissuade Iran from its nuclear program.

The 12-3 vote in the Security Council was opposed by Turkey and Brazil (with Lebanon abstaining) who had negotiated a separate accord with Iran to transfer some of its enriched uranium overseas in return for a medical-grade substitute.

The article casts doubt on the efficacy of sanctions and notes alarmingly that there is an active debate going on right now among high-level Iranian officials about the possibility of creating a “break-out” capability, the option to quickly manufacture a nuclear weapon if deemed necessary.

The sanctions, in my opinion, could not be much weaker. They only target the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and about 40 individuals in the top reaches of government. They do not affect trade with Iran in any way, and the price for getting Chinese support involved not hurting the Iranian economy.

Though the United States and Europe tried to save face by saying they would impose their own tougher restrictions later on, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be deemed correct when he said the sanctions were like “annoying flies, like a used tissue.”

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Web of Shell Companies Veils Trade by Iran’s Ships,” describes the attempt of the Iranian government via the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Irisl) to hide its assets and continue to do business as usual despite the United States and U.N. sanctions.

The United States stopped and sanctioned business with Irisl in 2008, but, according to the article, Irisl just changed the names of the ships, created shell companies and flew flags from other nations to conceal the owner’s origin.

The New York Times does some excellent investigative work in this article, providing examples of actual ships and how exterior elements changed while substantive matters, such as ultimate ownership by Irisl remained the same.

Iran experienced a temporary setback in their efforts at concealment when they tried using charter boats from other nations. However, the non-Iranian charter crews often cooperated with attempts to board the ships and, on one occasion, a treasure trove of weapons was discovered, believed to be bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The article demonstrates what a slippery opponent Iran can become and the difficulty in reining them in through non-military means. For this reason, in my opinion, sanctions can only be used as a stopgap measure, and a more permanent solution must be found.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “After Deadly Raid at Sea, Israel is Sharply Criticized,” describes the results of an Israeli attack on ships attempting to break its blockade of Gaza, a clear attempt to instigate Israel into some sort of action.

There were six ships involved and more than 10,000 tons of aid, yet all participants knew their attempt was illegal and bound to provoke some sort of reaction. Israel wanted to stop five of the ships by tangling nets in their propellers, but apparently the sixth one was too large for that method.

When Israelis boarded the sixth ship, the Mavi Marmara, a struggle ensured — the details are still under contention — and nine people were killed, many of them Turks. As a result, Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel; joint military activities were canceled; the Security Council of the United Nations met in special session; and the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, canceled a planned meeting with President Obama.

The Arabs have clearly won the public relations war, but according to the article, it is legal to stop ships in international waters when they are trying to break a blockade. In fact, the Israelis just wanted to temporarily divert the ships to the Israeli port city of Ashdod, inspect the cargo, and then send it on to Gaza as desired.

The reaction and fallout from this raid will be very predictable, but the passengers on the ships must have known there was potential for trouble.

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 story in today’s New York Times, “Arson and Riots as Thai Military Quells Protests,” describes a crackdown by the government in Thailand against protestors who have been occupying a zone in the center of Bangkok. While the crackdown dispersed the protesters, who have been trying to negotiate an end to their sit-in for several weeks, it resulted in rioting, arson and looting throughout the country.

According to the article, almost 30 buildings were set ablaze – including a major department store, the stock exchange, banks, a movie theatre and a television station — and protests spread to other provinces around the country. A curfew in Bangkok has transformed the city into a militarized zone.

Several protest leaders were forced to surrender but remained defiant. Meanwhile, some of their followers used assault weapons and grenades as they squared off against the army.

The conflict is hauntingly familiar. The people oppressed by a dictatorship yearn for democracy and freedom, evident in other lands thanks to the spread of globalization and the Internet. The government responds with a crackdown and sometimes succeeds through brutal repression. Iran and China come to mind.

Sometimes, however, the protestors succeed, and transformational change results. We can only hope for the best in Thailand, even though now it looks like an uphill struggle.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “Tories in Britain Reclaim Power with a Coalition,” describes the triumph of the Conservative Party there after forming an alliance with the Liberal Democrats. The new Prime Minister, David Cameron, moved into 10 Downing Street seemingly overnight.

The head of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, became deputy Prime Minister in an unlikely alliance between two parties that seem to have very distinct, and separate, philosophies, similar to the Republicans and Democrats in the United States.

Britain hasn’t had a coalition government since World War II, and it remains to be seen how effective it will be. The Camerons seem to be a very telegenic couple, and today’s article was accompanied by a large photo of them on the front page.

Britain’s policy agenda includes addressing a large public debt, similar to many other countries in Europe, and resembling the current crisis in Greece. This will require adopting an austerity program with many cuts sure to be unpopular with the British public. But the way Britain handles the situation, after executing a stimulus program very similar to the United States, could be instructive for us as well.

Prime Minister Cameron ran on a philosphy of compassionate conservatism (ring a bell?) though I am unsure of how compassionate conservatism really is.

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.