Book Review: Desert Hell: The British Invasion of Mesopotamia
by Charles Townshend
Published by Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2011, 624 pages
Reviewed by Youssef Aboul-Enein
The history of Iraq and the United States has been linked for better or worse with America's removal of Saddam Hussein, and the placement of the country towards some form of multi-faction representative government. This is why books on the World War I intervention of British forces in what would become Iraq draw much interest among current military historical readers. Charles Townshend is an academic and Professor of International History at Britain's Keele University His book delves deeply into the British involvement in Mespotamia, and dissects the tactics, operations, and strategies from the decision to land a British Expeditionary Force composed of Indian infantry in Basra in 1914, to the surrender of General Charles Townshend (no relation to the author) in Kut in 1916. Following the Siege of Kut, British officers described Kut as the largest surrender of British arms since the Siege of Yorktown on the American continent in 1781.
Britain, France, Germany, and Russia attempted to bully, influence, and outright annex the weakening Ottoman Empire. But within the weakness of the Ottoman Empire, internal potentates and despots, under its rule, would attempt to reach for increased autonomy. Tribal dyansities fought the Ottomans, and seduced the great powers, such as the British, for support. This was the state of the Ottoman dominions of Middle East in World War I. The book magnificently brings to life biographies of renowned Arabian figures such as Ibn Saud, Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca, and his sons Prince Feisal and Abdullah who all led the Arab Revolt, as well as lesser known Arab leaders like the Sheikh of Mohammara (located around what is Basra in Iraq), the Ibn Rashids (located in Northern Arabia today) who allied themselves with the Ottomans, and much more. Townshend also recreates the squabbles and virulent disagreements over Middle East policy among British officials in Egypt, India, and England, which would have disastrous results on a tactical and strategic level. For example, the book describes pressure from London to take Baghdad, despite serious reservations expressed by British Officials in India about placing their troops in an overstretched position. London's demands led to the disaster in Kut, when Ottoman forces, commanded by Halil Pasha, took 13,000 British prisoners. It was British officials in India who initially convinced London to deploy an army into what is now Iraq, to address threats to its oil interests in Persia. The book presents the total misreading of culture among the British commanding their own forces comprised of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, such as contending with any religious issues about whether to eat horsemeat while facing starvation. I will let you discover the answer as you read the book.
Townshend uses primarily British archival sources, and does not include such Arabic sources as the late Iraqi sociologist Ali al-Wardi's whose eight volume, "Glimpses of Modern Iraqi Social History," is a seminal work published in 1969. Wardi has an entire volume dedicated to the British Mandatory period. However, I can excuse the author, as Wardi's work is not available in the English language. Those with an interest in Iraq and the Middle East will find Townshend's work a fine read.
Commander Aboul-Enein is author of "Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat," (Naval Institute Press, 2010). He teaches part-time at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in Washington D.C. Commander Aboul-Enein is working with Naval Institute Press to publish a book exposing American military readers to the work of the late father of Iraqi sociology Ali al-Wardi, it is scheduled for publication in April 2012. He wishes to thank his Teaching Assistant Mr. Michael Barry for editing this review and the National Defense University Library for providing the volume for review.
Comments
"The history of Iraq and the United States has been linked for better or worse with Americas removal of Saddam Hussein, and the placement of the country towards some form of multi-faction representative government."
That depends on your particular orientation, Youssef. You would be better stated to include the pre-'91 relationship which saw direct US support for Saddam's war of aggression against Iran in what Iranians call the Imposed War; that war's disastrous affect on Iraq's economy; inexplicable signals by the US towards Iraq prior to its invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent turnaround in the US-Saddam relationship following the invasion.
When you take into consideration a fuller account of this relationship, you see how much different it is to the British misadventure in Iraq during the so-called Great War.