Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS.

From a USAID report:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
(this will include men who were circumcised tribally rather than medically, but they and their partners may also believe themselves to be protected, and the whole rationale for the RCTs into female-to-male transmission was a purported correlation between high rates of male circumcision and low rates of HIV)

It seems highly unrealistic to expect that there will be no risk compensation.  The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".  This figure seems to have been unchanged in 2012.
http://www.info.gov.za/issues/hiv/survey_2009.htm
www.hst.org.za/.../...VCommunicationSurvey2012.pdf
jhhesa.org/sites/default/files/hiv_survey.pdf

A study in Zambia found that "30% of women at R1, and significantly more (41%) at R2, incorrectly believed MC is fully protective for men against HIV."
journals.plos.org/.../journal.pone.0149517

It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women.  The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised:
www.thelancet.com/.../abstract

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward.  Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.