The lead story in today’s New York Times, titled “U.S. Said to Order an Expanded Use of Secret Action,” describes an order issued by General Petraeus in September to expand the use of special operations forces from the Pentagon for operations beyond combat zones into a number of countries in the Middle East region including Iran.

The order seemingly bypasses the C.I.A., traditionally in charge of clandestine activities, despite the attempts by sources in the article to vow cooperation and stating that “there’s enough work to go around.” More significantly, this expansion of Pentagon activities is largely shielded from oversight by the Congress and impacts relations among traditionally friendly countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia.

The directive still seems largely mysterious, and it largely seems to give the Pentagon a free hand to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants. Military sources seem to be cloaking it in the context of 9/11 and the need to combat militants around the globe, but the article reflects on a possible boomerang effect on the safety of U.S. soldiers.

The idea seems to be that spies are not shielded by the Geneva Convention, and if American military forces are blended with spies, their protection will evaporate also. It certainly does not do wonders in combating the image of an American empire promulgated by our adversaries.

This story has legs, and I expect to see follow up articles in the future.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. and Russia Agree to Slash Nuclear Arms,” describes a new agreement between the United States and Russia on a treaty to reduce nuclear weapons. Pending a final call between President Obama and President Medvedev, it is due to be signed in Prague on April 8.

The treaty, of course, requires a vote of two-thirds approval, 67 votes, in the Senate, and it comes at a time when Democrats and Republicans have been particularly polarized regarding the healthcare debate. However, there does seem to be some cautious willingness to work together and maybe those times are behind us.

The agreement reduces various categories of weapons including missiles, heavy bombers and warheads by about one quarter, and it has been praised by arms control groups such as the Arms Control Association and Global Zero. The main sticking point seems to have been the use of defensive shields, with Russia opposed and the United States in favor. As a compromise, there was some linkage about these shields in the preamble of the agreement but not in any of the concrete limitations.

After the recent healthcare debate, this agreement represents yet another success for President Obama and should be a heartening moment for all Americans.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Drone Flights Leave Military Awash in Data.” It describes some of the issues involved in the increasing use of drones, especially by the Air Force.

The main problem, similar to the attempted Christmas Day bombing, is the volume of the data. Just last year, the military captured so much data that it would take 24 years to watch if viewed continuously. In addition to the most publicized purpose, striking at terrorists in the mountainous regions of Pakistan, the drones also play a crucial surveillance role in stopping roadside bombs and protecting areas where troops will be entering.

According to the article, the Air Force is still lagging behind the television industry in using tools such as telestrators. However, in my opinion, the main problem still concerns the volume of data. The military must develop automatic ways to categorize it, beyond the initial review for any mortal dangers. One of my clients provides an audio tool for call centers with a large volume of communications. This tool uses speech analytics so supervisors can categorize phone calls and pick out the ones useful for training purposes. I’m sure the Air Force could develop similar technology for video.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “NATO Ministers Support General on Afghan War.” It describes a decision by defense ministers from NATO to support General Stanley McChrystal in his recommendation to add 40,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan. General McChrystal made a suprise visit to the meeting to explain his point of view.

The article points out, however, that this point of view has not been widely supported among the political leadership of NATO countries, a significant caveat. General McChrystal, however, is continuing to lobby, an action that conflicts with our country’s tradition of civilian leadership of the Armed Forces. He was not originally scheduled to make any appearance here, and his continued insistence, at a time when the White House is undergoing a series of meetings to evaluate his recommendation, is becoming redundant and suggests an effort to box President Obama into a decision in his favor.

Vice President Joe Biden, who supports a more focused counterterrorism approach, as opposed to counterinsurgency, seems to have much of history on his side, if not the military-industrial complex. It has been widely quoted that there are only about 100 combatants from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, compared to Pakistan where they have established training camps — and where Osama bin Laden is hiding out.

The Vice President has been widely praised for his acumen on foreign policy, and I’m hoping that President Obama will listen to him.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Army to Require Training Course in Mental Stress.” It describes a new program designed to prevent future mental problems including depression, suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It will eventually become available to all members of the military including active duty, reservists and the National Guard.

The article goes on to describe the process of implementation, starting with training 1,500 sargaents in the techniques so they can then teach others. The program will be introduced in two bases in October and then expanded. It will consist of weekly 90-minute sessions.

While some military leaders question the ultimate effectiveness of the program, especially given the Army’s culture of suppressing emotions, in my opinion, it is long overdue. Even if one suicide is prevented, doesn’t that justify the cost (estimated at $117 million)?

Just as we are now promoting preventative measures in the new healthcare program to avoid unnecesssary and much larger expenses later on, so the military is now acting to decrease an estimated 20 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with some sort of a mental problem. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The military will evaluate the program with a 170-question analysis for each participant. Then, it will tweak the program as necessary.