If male to female transmission is higher, then that in turn increases the risk to men who have sex with them.  My second link did show a statistically significant connection between HIV status in women and partner circumcision btw.

Either way, I think we can all agree that circumcision can only help men who are having unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner.  HIV doesn't strike people at random, and it just seems to me that the focus should all be on ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms).  Any partial solution, be it circumcision, vaccine, or microbicide will lead to more unsafe sex.  This will presumably be more so for circumcision, since it's the most sensitive part of the penis being removed.  There have already been reports of people thinking that circumcision means they don't need condoms despite all the warnings.  I genuinely think that promoting circumcision will result in more deaths from AIDS in Africa rather than fewer.  If funds and health resources are diverted from ABC to circumcision, this will only make things worse.

The article says this btw:  "Some previous studies found that circumcision led to little, if any, decrease in penile sensitivity".  If you look at such studies, they almost always measure sensitivity of the glans, rather than the inner foreskin.  They typically don't even measure the most sensitive part of the glans.  To me, that either suggests ignorance on the part of the researchers, or that they didn't actually want to find any decrease.

I don't have a problem with condoms btw.  I used them for over two years with one girlfriend who didn't like the Pill.