The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:
"Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"

but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective.  They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.

It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.

How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.

The AAP is the same organization that changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 btw saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later:

Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".

I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer.  11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.

Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.