Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Iraq inspired by strategy that caused the greatest defeat in British military history?
1914-1918.net ^ | 2003 | Chris Baker

Posted on 03/27/2003 8:13:56 PM PST by Destro

Is Iraq's strategy inspired by that which caused the greatest defeat in British military history?

Who's Who: Khalil Pasha

Khalil Pasha (1864-1923) was placed at the head of the Turkish Sixth Army during World War One, based in Mesopotamia.

Simultaneously military governor of Baghdad (and all territory south-west of Aleppo), Khalil's policy during the extended Anglo-Indian advance of 1915 appeared simple: he consistently permitted his field commanders to retreat under fire.

Progress was slow however, if sure, on account of heavy rain and an overriding concern to minimise casualties. Additional difficulties were faced by the retreating Turks in fighting off repeated attacks by local Marsh Arabs (the Shi'ites of the South), who attacked both sides at every opportunity.

This approach was reversed at the Battle of Ctesiphon (after an initial withdrawal by the Turks) with a counter-attack launched at the retreating British force under Sir Charles Townshend.

After successfully conducting the conclusion of the siege of Kut, when Townshend finally surrendered unconditionally on 30 April 1916, Khalil was inclined to support a more aggressive policy, proposing a Turkish sweep into Persia.

Considered an honoured guest by his Turkish captors Sir Charles Townshend was treated with lavish hospitality; meanwhile his 10,000 troops were largely subjected to barbaric treatment (including homosexual rape). A remarkable two-thirds of this group died while being marched into captivity.

Mesopotamia

A long, drawn-out campaign in appalling conditions that was initially about protecting British oil interests, but later gave rise to visions of glittering prizes in the capture of Baghdad.

Why here?

Mesopotamia was part of the Turkish Ottoman empire. Germany had for many years before the war assiduously developed Turkey as an ally, which it saw as an important part of the Drang nach Osten (The Thrust towards the East: Germany wanted new lands, new markets, lebensraum). The Turkish army was led by German 'advisors', as was much of its trade and commerce.

Britain relied heavily on Gulf oil to keep its Navy at sea. It determined very quickly on the outbreak of the war with Germany to protect its interests by occupying the oilfields and pipeline near Basra. Later, after an early string of cheap successes, British eyes fell on Baghdad. Victory over the Turks was believed by some to be a less costly way towards defeat of Germany than the painful battering at the Western Front. They began a series of attempts to move north along the rivers to the ancient city. Pushed by Germany - which also tried to encourage a Jihad (Muslim Holy War) against the British forces - Turkey was to strongly resist the British incursion.

What happened?

It was the Indian Army, which included a number of British units (initially of the Regular Army but soon joined by Territorials), that supplied the 'British' fighting forces ordered to Mesopotamia. This army had been under-invested for decades, and it showed in the quality of equipment and in training. Guns, shells, small arms and ammunition - of which there was never enough - were often literally museum pieces or considered not good enough for the Western Front and other areas. The Army command also failed to realise the difficulties of supplying an army that moved further upstream from the Gulf. There were never enough shallow-draught boats, nor enough mules or camels, to adequately supply the fighting forces that were to be up to 500 miles away from port.

Like Gallipoli, conditions in Mesopotamia defy description. Extremes of temperature (120 degrees F was common); arid desert and regular flooding; flies, mosquitoes and other vermin: all led to appalling levels of sickness and death through disease. Under these incredible conditions, units fell short of officers and men, and all too often the reinforcements were half-trained and ill-equipped. Medical arrangements were quite shocking, with wounded men spending up to two weeks on boats before reaching any kind of hospital.

The early successes in the river delta were misleading; more and more troops were sent to the Mesopotamia theatre, for operations towards Baghdad which stretched the supply lines to the limit. There was a serious difference of opinion between London, India and the Commander of the force, regarding the role of the army. The fomer saw it as defensive; the latter two as offensive with a view to capturing Baghad. The campaign was muddled: the attitudes and complacency disastrous. The advance plodded on, until a resounding defeat in November 1915 in front of Ctesiphon led to headlong retreat to Kut-al-Amara. The army in Kut became surrounded and besieged; eventually 9,000 (3,000 British and 6,000 Indian troops) surrendered five months later - the greatest defeat and loss in British military history up to that point.

Following the fall of Kut, the British ordered Major-General Stanley Maude to take command of the British army in Mesopotamia. He introduced new methods, which culminated in a decisive defeat of the Turks in February 1917, and the capture of Baghdad in March 1917. On this day, the Berlin-Baghdad railway was captured, and German schemes for Turkey were finished.

British forces (and Russians, advancing from the north and east) closed in on the Turks throughout the autumn of 1917, and into the Spring of 1918. Despite making great advances, however, and the additional pressure coming from the north-west, where British forces in Palestine defeated the Turks, no decisive victory was gained.

An armistice was signed by the Turks in Mesopotamia on 1st November 1918.

Landscape for battle

Mesopotamia is an ancient land, through which run the great Rivers Tigris and Euphrates. At the southern end, this is a complex river delta. The two rivers meet at Qurna, 40 miles north of Basra, where they come together to form the Shatt-al-Arab, which flows into the Persian Gulf. The land is for the most part desert, and is very flat. The rivers flood the plains to a great extent, when the winter snows in the northern mountains thaw. The small towns and villages that existed along the river banks in 1914 were generally constructed several feet above water level. There is virtually no water in this land, except that from the rivers. There were no roads, so all transport had to be by boat along the rivers. The major centre of population was Baghdad, almost 570 miles upstream from the Gulf.

For centuries before the Great War, this land had been part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Lying along its eastern border was Persia, generally friendly to the British. The Arab Sheiks of Kuwait and Muhammerah also supported Britain; the Arab tribes of coastal Mesopotamia often changed sides.

Today the land where the British forces were active in 1914-1918 lies in Iraq.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: iraq; iraqhistory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: Ymani Cricket
On hearing the news of sending 100,000 more troops (and saying we meant to do it all along

Ahem
Those two divisions etc were activated several weeks ago but their equipmnet was still floating around in the Med off Turkey
41 posted on 03/27/2003 8:39:17 PM PST by uncbob ( building tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mikegi
I am not posting on what will happen this time-it will not!!--just on what Iraq is TRYING to make happen. Maybe.
42 posted on 03/27/2003 8:39:23 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Saddam's forces are frantic, trying their best to look fearsome and composed. They are caught in a buzzsaw, and it hurts.
43 posted on 03/27/2003 8:41:09 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I suspect the Iraqi leaders would like to have decisive fighting take place in Kut. It no doubt has a mythic significance to them, in view of its history. May not matter to U.S. troops. But it may have an effect on the morale of Iraqi troops.

Yup. I agree.

44 posted on 03/27/2003 8:41:51 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Silver lining alert!

At first I thought it was a bad thing that these thugs are putting up a fight and letting themselves get killed. I thought the quick surrenders would be better. I thought the less blood the better, on both sides.

I now recondsider. These thugs and villians would absolutely ruin any post-war Iraq unless killed or at minimum brought to severe justice. We know what they are capable of, thanks to the many stories of thei tricks, killing other iraqis, and executing our own brave captured soldiers.

I dont want baath thugs 'winning the peace' 5 years from now. Think of the former confederates that became the KKK - they lost the war, but 'won' the 'peace'. Contrast with post-war Germany, etc, denazified. I want them dead now, so the democrats and freedom-lovers in Iraq can fully control in the future and we will never see terrorists and Islamofascists rise in Iraq.

I am hearing we are killing these fedayeen by the hundreds and thousands. Whatever it takes.

45 posted on 03/27/2003 8:43:07 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq! Lets Roll! now!-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
I was referring to the urban house-to-house fighting

Goin' out on a little limb here, but I'm thinking this all ends before it gets to that point. We've already had lots of fleeting stories about surreptitious surrnder negotiations. The Iraqis -- the smart ones -- have to realize the goodies they get by surrender are astonishingly huge compared to the -- err, nothing -- they get out of interminable, wearying battle.

46 posted on 03/27/2003 8:44:00 PM PST by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Uh huh. The enemy comes out of the towns and we kill them.

Works for me.

47 posted on 03/27/2003 8:44:38 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq! Lets Roll! now!-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: expatpat
The US presumably has a plan for handling Baghdad when they get it surrounded, but I don't know what it is""


48 posted on 03/27/2003 8:44:56 PM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Okay.

Here's a question: Why doesn't Saddam simply pull all of his Republican Guard troops back into Baghdad?

49 posted on 03/27/2003 8:45:15 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ymani Cricket
In WWII the greatest minds challenged one another (i.e Rommel-Montgomery

Rommel maybe, Montgomery No, Gen Patton was the man who kicked Rommel's butt,

50 posted on 03/27/2003 8:45:59 PM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I am not posting on what will happen this time-it will not!!--just on what Iraq is TRYING to make happen. Maybe.

Ok, gotcha. I'm beginning to think that Saddam believes that he really will win. That's probably a good thing because when he realizes that he is doomed to swing from a lamppost, he's going to cut loose the chem/bio weapons on our troops and/or his own people.

51 posted on 03/27/2003 8:46:17 PM PST by mikegi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Who says that they are not there already? The fighing do far has been with regular units. Despite the headlines we have not engaged any Republican Guards yet.
52 posted on 03/27/2003 8:47:17 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Gee, the greatest defeat in British history was when they lost the American revolution to George W.
53 posted on 03/27/2003 8:47:38 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
The fedayeen are fighting to the death because they have no alternative. They can die in battle hoping against hope for some miraculous deliverance, or they can die ignominiously in the the hands of enraged liberated Iraqi citizens.

They are men without a future.

54 posted on 03/27/2003 8:48:07 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
Not the least of which is that at Stalingrad the Russians were able to draw the Germans into the city, while massing large tank and combined arms armies on their flanks. Saddam has no lurking tank armies to come to his rescue.

True that. BUT, my thinking was along the lines of going into Baghdad itself. It was the luring of the Germans into the city itself and into the maze of buildings that was the worst part. House-to-house urband combat is very difficult. It doesn't matter whether or not Iraqi forces have two double armored columns double flanking your own forces. Its irrelevant in a city of millions if you can't persuade civilians to rebel and you can't harm them either because of political fallout. All I can say is that I hope our troops have studied their urban warfare field manuals with care. I mean a LOT of care. With no experience or plenty of it, it is a TOUGH job no matter how many years you can spend learning about it at Fort Benning. Flat desert with air support is one thing. Mazes of city streets are another. I guess it depends on the objective.

55 posted on 03/27/2003 8:48:11 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool
I am too. Saddam is making a military strategic error, but doing it for political reasons.

We *expected* to liberate southern Iraq without resistence. but he put forces there. If we did liberate those cities without difficulty, it would be a propaganda blow to saddam. So saddam seeded opposition throughout the south.

Militarily, it makes life much easier for us. The more dispersed he is, the more we can defeat his forces one by one. In other words, sending his forces out of baghdad makes it easier for us to defeat him in baghdad.

Either way we win.

56 posted on 03/27/2003 8:49:25 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq! Lets Roll! now!-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Yea, but we didn't homosexualy rape the British POWs afterwards like the Turks did...
57 posted on 03/27/2003 8:49:52 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Destro
My opinion, for whatever it is worth (probably not much), is that we have special ops in Baghdad who have been organizing a resistance which will spring into action when we're ready to move in.
58 posted on 03/27/2003 8:50:49 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Saddam let American troops reach the outskirts of Baghdad, now he can sit and wait for harsh Russian winter to do the rest :-)

Dang it! The Iraqi snowdrifts will kick our butts come July!

Seriously - all this c$^p about not being able to fight in the summer is stupid. Anyone ever heard of NTC at Ft Irwin (think very close to Death Valley). We practice there in hot weather regularly. Does it suck? Yes. Would it suck worse to be an Iraqi fighting then? Damn right!

Some folks need to figure out - the US military isn't a Spring/Fall seasonal unit. Maybe the Euro-weenies' have militaries that don't practice for combat except when it is 75 & Sunny, but the US military can do the job 12 months a year.

59 posted on 03/27/2003 8:51:42 PM PST by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I also assume that and assume we tried it in Basra. If it did not work in Basra--where they hate the Ba'athists why would it work in Baghdad--where they hate the Ba'sthists only a little less so?
60 posted on 03/27/2003 8:52:28 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson