There is a study that implies that this approach could be counterproductive. Circumcision of HIV men INCREASES risk to women. | ICGI - Genital Integrity:
A new study published in Lancet shows that women are 50% more likely to contract HIV if they are having sex with circumcised men. Most of the infections were from the time period when the couples began having sex before the wound healed, but the effect continued past that period, indicating that there is no benefit to women from male circumcision. Proponents of mass circumcision plans have long argued that women are protected when men are circumcised, but this study indicates the opposite. The study, like its predecessors, was stopped early.
Medical statisticians may believe that universal male circumcision will statistically reduce the rate of transmission of HIV, but one is dealing with people, not statitstics. The web site in the link is an advocacy site, and not disinterested in this matter, but The Lancet is a reputable medical journal.
The study referred to above shows what simple logic should have shown anyway -- that while circumcision may reduce a male's chance of being infected with HIV, one that male is infected, it does nothing to reduce the chance of his passing on the virus to women.
And the propaganda for universal male circumcision may be counterproductive, in that, human nature being what it is, it could lead circumcised males to believe that they are immune to infection (yes, weirder things have happened -- people are not statistics) and thus become more promiscuous.