I agree with others in that firstly, the evidence behind this doesn't seem 100% yet. And more importantly, forcing people to circumcise themselves is a horrible plan. Why would somebody go through such a procedure to do something that may reduce their chances on average? Some have argued that there is a higher risk for bottoming unprotected than topping, doesn't mean that topping unprotected isn't dangerous, even if it were true that it were less dangerous on average. Condoms are the most viable solution we have. Whether or not circumcised, people need to be wearing condoms. To the OP: condom availability is not the issue, its a lot easier to provide condoms than circumcisions. I was just reading that in India one in four condoms provided actually go towards the intended use. The population keeps using them for balloons or mixing in pavement to make roads smoother, etc. So the problem isn't "when condoms aren't available" as much as getting people to use them consistently. Furthermore, often these operations have side effects, especially when performed in less than ideal conditions.
This idea is up there with forced sterilizations to control population in the developing world. There are empirical, peer reviewed studies, showing that higher educational attainment leads to higher response to safe sex campaigns, maybe the money would be better spent there. This is the kind of half-assed thinking that prevents us from getting this epidemic under control.