The Replacement of the US Ambassador in Iraq
The news of replacing the present US ambassador in Iraq is good news. Since Mr Zada was appointed in Baghdad the violence in Iraq increased and he interfered towards those who support the terrorist groups. One of the most disadvantages and obvious things when Mr Zada took his position as the US ambassador was the deterioration between the Sadr group and the US forces. This was noticed several times in the Sadr city and some other areas.
The replacement of Mr Zada will be better to be of less interference in the Iraqi affairs like a high commissioner. Yes he or she may help but have not to bias towards a group against the others. He needs to be neutral, honest and wise with high level of diplomacy.
The ambassador is not a high commissioner and the sovereignty of the state represented in its own government has to be respected. The ambassador has to show and act that he represents a state which is a friend to the Iraqi people and not to show them that he represent a state which occupied their country. This was what happened during the time of Mr Zada.
The good news of sentencing Saddam and the replacement of Mr Zada should be followed by real work towards peace, security and reconstruction. Only then the situation in Iraq and the region will be better and safer and only then the war against terrorism achieved a step forward. Other than that the terrorists may send the region into chaos.