Status
Available
Publication
New York : Carroll & Graf Pub., 2004.
Description
A scholar and adviser to Tony Blair's government analyzes how Churchill created the artificial monarchy of Iraq after World War I, thereby forcing together unfriendly peoples under a single ruler. Using T.E. Lawrence to induce Arabs under the rule of the Ottoman Turks to rebel against their oppressors, the British and French during World War I convinced the Hashemite clan that they would rule over Syria. In fact, Britain had promised the territory to the French. To make amends, Churchill created the nation of Iraq and made the Hashemite leader, Feisal, king of a land to which he had no connections at all. Defying a global wave of nationalistic sentiment, and the desire of subject peoples to rule themselves, Churchill created a Middle Eastern powder keg.--Publisher description.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member nbmars
Catherwood's thesis is that Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen from the day of its founding. 9/11, the Balkan Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflict [to some extent], and the conflict in Iraq all can be traced to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the way in which the victorious allies partitioned
The book begins with a well-written short history of the region, which includes the following interesting nuggets. The rise of Islam was facilitated by the fatigue and weakness of the Byzantines and the Persians, who had been contesting control of the area between themselves. Iraq did not exist as a country until 1923. The Basra region was the cradle of Shia Islam, which did not become the official religion of Iran for centuries. The Ottoman Turks were the first Caliphs who were neither Arab nor descendants of Mohammed. By the 18th centruy, the border between the Ottomans and Persia was pretty much what it is today. In the 19th century, the British thought of the Ottomans as the principal bulwark against Russian expansion into the Balkans and Caucauses, but when WWI broke out, the British and Russians were on the same side. The Ottomans probably sided with Germany because of their long rivalry with Russia.
When WWI ended, the French and British were greedy for the spoils of the Ottoman Empire. The British wanted what is now Iraq to complete a safe air route from Cairo to India. Surprisingly, Churchill's voluminous correspondence and memos to various government agencies rarely mentions the importance of oil, which was promising but not yet proven. Britain's chief concern in the area was the possible expansion of the new Turkey, which was busily beating the Greeks and ethnically cleansing Anatolia of Christians.
Catherwood dispenses with one of modern Arabs' favorite myths, namely that the British denied the Arabs their rightful prize for their role in beating the Ottomans through the "Arab Revolt." The author says there really was no significant Arab Revolt. Rather, a few thousand tribesmen of questionable military value fought along with Lawrence, but the real fighting was done by British troops undeer Allenby. Most Arabs remained loyal to their coreligionists under the Sultan.
The British were awarded the Mandate of Mesopotamia, but found that the real Arab revolt was against Western rule. After the war, the British were strapped for cash, and quickly wanted to reduce their presence in the Mesopotamia. They were having plenty of trouble in Ireland, India, and Palestine. They thought the cheapest way of controlling the new Iraq would be to install an Arab king who would beholden to them. There were no such Arabs from Mesopotamia available, so they chose one from the Hejaz, Feisel, who had ridden with Lawrence. They appended Kurdistan in the north to the new "Irak" as a way of preventing the Shiites from having too great a majority in the country and to provide a bulwark against Turkish expansion. They thought they could control the unruly tribesmen with the RAF rather than the army. Churchill recommended using poison gas bombs.
The Iraq created was never stable. Feisel and the Hashamids had to be somewhat anti-British to establish any legitimacy among their subjects. The monarchy lasted from 1921 to 1958, during which time there were 58 [sic!] changes of government. Stability was established by the Ba'athists, but only through the well know extensive cruelty practiced by Saddam.
It is very interesting to read the correspondence of Churchill and other british officials from 1920-21, because they faced problems almost identical to those now faced by the Americans. Churchill's biggest error was to think nationalism could be as powerful a force in the Middle East as religion. Folly indeed.
(JAB)
Show More
it among themselves.The book begins with a well-written short history of the region, which includes the following interesting nuggets. The rise of Islam was facilitated by the fatigue and weakness of the Byzantines and the Persians, who had been contesting control of the area between themselves. Iraq did not exist as a country until 1923. The Basra region was the cradle of Shia Islam, which did not become the official religion of Iran for centuries. The Ottoman Turks were the first Caliphs who were neither Arab nor descendants of Mohammed. By the 18th centruy, the border between the Ottomans and Persia was pretty much what it is today. In the 19th century, the British thought of the Ottomans as the principal bulwark against Russian expansion into the Balkans and Caucauses, but when WWI broke out, the British and Russians were on the same side. The Ottomans probably sided with Germany because of their long rivalry with Russia.
When WWI ended, the French and British were greedy for the spoils of the Ottoman Empire. The British wanted what is now Iraq to complete a safe air route from Cairo to India. Surprisingly, Churchill's voluminous correspondence and memos to various government agencies rarely mentions the importance of oil, which was promising but not yet proven. Britain's chief concern in the area was the possible expansion of the new Turkey, which was busily beating the Greeks and ethnically cleansing Anatolia of Christians.
Catherwood dispenses with one of modern Arabs' favorite myths, namely that the British denied the Arabs their rightful prize for their role in beating the Ottomans through the "Arab Revolt." The author says there really was no significant Arab Revolt. Rather, a few thousand tribesmen of questionable military value fought along with Lawrence, but the real fighting was done by British troops undeer Allenby. Most Arabs remained loyal to their coreligionists under the Sultan.
The British were awarded the Mandate of Mesopotamia, but found that the real Arab revolt was against Western rule. After the war, the British were strapped for cash, and quickly wanted to reduce their presence in the Mesopotamia. They were having plenty of trouble in Ireland, India, and Palestine. They thought the cheapest way of controlling the new Iraq would be to install an Arab king who would beholden to them. There were no such Arabs from Mesopotamia available, so they chose one from the Hejaz, Feisel, who had ridden with Lawrence. They appended Kurdistan in the north to the new "Irak" as a way of preventing the Shiites from having too great a majority in the country and to provide a bulwark against Turkish expansion. They thought they could control the unruly tribesmen with the RAF rather than the army. Churchill recommended using poison gas bombs.
The Iraq created was never stable. Feisel and the Hashamids had to be somewhat anti-British to establish any legitimacy among their subjects. The monarchy lasted from 1921 to 1958, during which time there were 58 [sic!] changes of government. Stability was established by the Ba'athists, but only through the well know extensive cruelty practiced by Saddam.
It is very interesting to read the correspondence of Churchill and other british officials from 1920-21, because they faced problems almost identical to those now faced by the Americans. Churchill's biggest error was to think nationalism could be as powerful a force in the Middle East as religion. Folly indeed.
(JAB)
Show Less
LibraryThing member EricCostello
An analysis of the events that led to the creation of the modern nation of Iraq in the final years of the First World War and in the aftermath thereof. The basic theme of the book appears to be that Iraq was a construct that was slapped together out of expediency, both to deal with French ambitions
Show More
in the Middle East, and to deal with financial restrictions on the British Empire in the wake of the war. One interesting note in the book I found was the fact that the author makes a case that the account of "Lawrence of Arabia" in "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" is largely fictional. The author also notes that the title shouldn't be read as a critique of Churchill, though he doesn't come off very well in the book; the author twice refers to a poison gas memorandum -- though he doesn't go into a great deal of detail as to how much it was put into effect, or whether Churchill truly understood the implications of what he was writing. (There's a notion that Churchill thought poison gas made people sneeze.) An interesting and plausible book written around the time of the invasion of Iraq in the Second Gulf War. So far, as of 2019, Iraq has held together. Show Less
LibraryThing member the.ken.petersen
This book gets a bit muddled at periods but, it does give an insight into the post WWI British attitude. The feeling of the Brits, which has only partially changed, seems to have been that the world is divided into Brits and foreigners who, will be grateful to the benefits (?) of British
Countries were created by a few jolly good chaps, sitting with a pen, ruler and a map. Decades later, when they erupt into civil war, the argument is that this proves the need for "civilised" rule.
I began this book expecting it to reinforce my prejudices against Churchill but, the truth is that he was little worse than his compatriots. A depressing, yet worthwhile, read.
Show More
governance.Countries were created by a few jolly good chaps, sitting with a pen, ruler and a map. Decades later, when they erupt into civil war, the argument is that this proves the need for "civilised" rule.
I began this book expecting it to reinforce my prejudices against Churchill but, the truth is that he was little worse than his compatriots. A depressing, yet worthwhile, read.
Show Less