Kuwait Names 1st Ambassador to Iraq Since Gulf War; Iraq's Neighbors Reject Sectarianism
Friday, July 18, 2008 at 06:04AM When critics talk about how Bush’s war in Iraq has made the Middle East less stable, you can point them toward this story about Iraq’s increasing diplomatic connections with neighboring countries and Arab countries in the region rejecting sectarianism and religious division despite al-Qaeda’s threats.
Kuwait names 1st ambassador to Iraq since Gulf War
Kuwait on Thursday named its first ambassador to Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War, in a major step toward healing the two countries’ painful past and boosting regional ties with Baghdad’s postwar government.
Al-Qaida in Iraq had warned Arab states not to open embassies in Baghdad because of the Iraqi government’s collaboration with U.S. military forces. But Iraqi and U.S. officials say violence has declined by 70 percent over the past year, and there have been no attacks on diplomatic missions in years.
A week ago, Kuwait said security had improved enough for it to finally name an ambassador.
Kuwait joins the United Arab Emirates and Jordan in opening up diplomatically to Baghdad, a step the U.S. has been prodding them to take. Bahrain has also said it is in the process of choosing an ambassador.
The announcement came as the Sunni leader of Lebanon’s parliamentary majority, Saad Hariri, met Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — also reflecting Iraq’s efforts to reconcile with aloof Arab neighbors and tamp down sectarian tension across the region.
Saad Hariri’s visit to Baghdad on Thursday also indicated the increasing willingness of Sunni leaders to improve ties with Baghdad’s Shiite-dominated government.
“We reject any interference in Iraqi internal affairs. We encourage reconstruction in Iraq. Lebanese companies will participate in the reconstruction in Iraq,” Hariri said after the meeting.
“We should unify our Arabism and concentrate on Islam, in which there is no difference between Sunni and Shiite. We should not make our countries into fields for sedition,” Hariri said later after meeting Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric, in the city of Najaf, south of Baghdad.
Looks like al-Qaeda isn’t quite as flourishing in the region as some would have us believe.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1997260
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (7)
A democratic Iraq is becoming a feature of the Middle East. Quite a distraction, for Al Qaeda, the tyrants, the terrorists and the warlords that is.
Amy: "... Looks like al-Qaeda isn’t quite as flourishing in the region as some would have us believe."
SG: I'm with you there Amy! In fact there wasn't any Al Qaeda in Iraq to 'flourish', before the invasion.
An Ambassador from the client state of Kuwait ... now there's an event of significance. As is the increased connection of new Iraq to it's neighbours ... especially IRAN.
Anywayz, speaking of a 'flourishing' Al Qaeda, what do you think of their increased 'flourishing-ness' in Afghanistan these days (where Al Qaeda was and Bin Laden was before, during and after 9/11), to say nothing of Pakistan?
But I don't want to 'dive(R)t' you from the USA bogged down in a predicted insurgency Bush was too incompetent to plan for. Nope! Don't want to divert to the large context of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where according to some experts, Al Qaeda is stronger now than before 9/11 ... Funny how that faded "Wanted" poster keeps turnin' up ....
"W" has failed at every business venture he every tried. This is just more of the same .... And adults, as well children for generations to come with the current debt, are going to have to bail 'US' outta the mess.
Yes, yes ... We are turning another corner in Iraq, just a corner that we shouldn't have had to turn if the "W"a(R) had been managed by adults, to say nothing of a "W"a(R) that should never have been fought.
Only a few more months before America (D)emocratically jettisons these guyz ... How much more damage can this Katrina-competent administration do ...?
Snerd
There were some al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion but I don't think that's the point. Al-Qaeda was scattered throughout the Middle East and had a training camp in Fallujah, but the al-Qaeda-Saddam link wasn't operational.
I don't know, do you blame the troops for not killing enough al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda isn't a country you can go and invade like Germany or Japan. It's like poison in the blood and is much more difficult to extract, but I'm sure al-Qaeda is glad you think so highly of them.
Wow, Bush is responsible for Katrina? You libs need to get over your dietification of the President. Really, they call hurricanes "acts of God" for a reason. You might want to remind yourself that Louisiana was a Democratic state with a Democratic governor and New Orleans had a Democratic mayor, both of whom were competely incompetent. I think that's why GOV Jindal is now in office there.
You don't have to like Bush, that's fine, but at least let your criticisms be reasonable.
AMY: "There were some al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion but I don't think that's the point."
SG: I agree, not the point ... Unless of course there was an invasion of Iraq based upon a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, let a lone a more general, but equally unlikely Saddam-Islamist (Islamo-fascist) connection ... Then it would be the point.
AMY: "al-Qaeda was scattered throughout the Middle East and had a training camp in Fallujah, but the al-Qaeda-Saddam link wasn't operational."
SG: Yes ... Not operational. like "W" inviting Obama to his birthday party. There is an invitation, but it is just not 'operational'.
And Al Qaeda is scatter through out the Middle East, but particularly scattered in Afghanistan where the largely Saudi highjacker were under the protection of the Taliban ... Where Bin Laden still seems to be, now that Bush got his Oil "W"a(R) in Iraq, and so doesn't really think about him that much anymore ...
Also, I wonder if we're gotta hear the term 'Global Front on Terror' anymore, now that it doesn't apply to Iraq? But does apply to Afghanistan?
Snerd
The invasion of Iraq had nothing directly to do with al-Qaeda. The threat was comprehensive and not one dimensional. 90,000 U.S. troops were already in the area containing Saddam. How long should that go on? Decades? Saddam's army repeatedly tried to shoot down our Air Force over the U.N. mandated No Fly Zone. Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr. in Kuwait 1993. The WMD threat was clear and whether or not Saddam was bluffing, he had used them to kill 100's of thousands of his own people. Over a million Iranians died in the Iran/Iraq war. He paid for the assassinations of Israelis.
There was no need to fabricate a reason for war. We had plenty. Now Iraqi is Saddam free with no threat of WMD (remnants were removed recenetly) and no evil heirs to the throne survive to threaten Iraq's future.
Thank God for Bush and his courage.
Not operational. like "W" inviting Obama to his birthday party. There is an invitation, but it is just not 'operational'.
I have no idea what you're talking about unless you're trying to say Bush invited Osama bin Laden to his birthday party? Nah, that'd be too bizarre even for you.
Really? Bush got his oil? Prove it. I'd love to see the connection between our high gas prices and victory over Iraq's oil. Have you been reading MoveOn.Org lately? You forgot to mention Halliburton.. You're losing it, sner(D).
Amy on "S"-tablishing her b(R)and of 'c(R)edibility'
Amy: "... Now Iraqi is Saddam free with no threat of WMD (remnants were removed recenetly) "
SG: "S"-pecially "E"z to criticize, it appea(R)s
Snerd
Amy: "Really? Bush got his oil? Prove it."
SG: Prove ... I don't think that's possible with you. However, here's something for you to think about, to consider possibly
",,, at the moment, Iraq does not have an oil law, so Iraq can't sign long-term exploration agreements, although they are doing it in Iraqi Kurdistan, and we've heard about this with Hunt Oil. But that's -- those are illegal contracts. They're very precarious. There could be future expropriations. It's really risky to go that route, because there isn't a law. And we know it's been a major push of this administration to get the Iraqi parliament to accept a US-backed oil law. This has been sold as a symbol of Iraqi unity. That's not the way it's seen in Iraq.
In Iraq, the reason why it has been years in resisting this oil law is because nationalizing the oil in Iraq was the centerpiece of the anti-colonial struggle, as it was in neighboring nations throughout the Arab world. And it is not just a pro-Saddam idea. It is not just a Baathist idea. It's the core of Arab nationalism. And that victory is being protected by many political forces in Iraq, and most notably by the oil workers' unions in Iraq, who said, "We don't need these foreign multinationals to get the oil out of the ground. We can do it ourselves. We can bring in technical support without giving away management control, without giving away ownership control" ..."
I guess the question is, why can't the Iraqis take their own oil outta their own soil? Why do they have to give away control? Why would they want to?
So if Iraqis don't have to give away control of their oil, and they don't want to, why would it be happening? Why would control by multinationals be part of the current Extension of Occupation agreement?
Snerd