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

Bevalaqua (sp?) is on FOX now saying that we should hold in place and wait for the 4th Infantry Division and not make any attempt on Baghdad. Unless we have a surprise left hook somewhere, I am thinking this drive has stalled on the 20.
61 posted on 03/27/2003 8:53:21 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
What you said!
62 posted on 03/27/2003 8:53:35 PM PST by JennysCool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Excellent post, Destro. I'll let others question your motives and draw inferences which you clearly did not imply. I believe your supposition regards possible Iraqi intentions, and not Iraqi capabilities. This is a very interesting article.

Rest assured that colonels and generals (ours and theirs) study military history -- and though weapons, ranges, speeds and communications have changed greatly over time, the basic principles of war have not. It is vitally important to know what your enemy intends, and you can gain solid clues to his plans from the history which inspires him. Thanks...

63 posted on 03/27/2003 8:54:15 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Don't assume Basra was a rebellion organized by us. In fact it may not have been a rebellion at all. Rather it may have simply been food riots. Entirely different animal. I also think that something is going on behind the scenes with Iran. We may have to pay off a few of their Ayatollahs to issue a fatwah, telling the Shiites to rebel.
64 posted on 03/27/2003 8:56:28 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Doom and gloom strikes again. Been a week for that it seems.
65 posted on 03/27/2003 8:57:03 PM PST by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
Rommel maybe, Montgomery No, Gen Patton was the man who kicked Rommel's butt

Sure, but regardless, Montgomery had a great tactical mind even if he was an arrogant SOB. Yes. Patton. Now there's a REAL general. The D-Day deception...A GREAT strategy! Hitler didn't follow his hunch about Normandy. People need to study Patton's ops. We could lure the Iraqis out of Baghdad if they thought our air support was cut-off. Then smack 'em as they come out thinking they wont get hit by air.

66 posted on 03/27/2003 8:58:00 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Destro
If Iraqis had two armored divisions in hiding that they could unleash against our supply lines then I would agree that we would would be in trouble. We have to distinguish here between and true military threat and a nuisance. The irregular units still active in the rear are a nuisance.
67 posted on 03/27/2003 9:00:09 PM PST by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I follow you Destro. It's a good discussion. Just ignore the flames.
68 posted on 03/27/2003 9:04:50 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Give me a break with that "Bridge Too Far" article. Again, you'd think our guys were on the verge of being wiped out if you read that thing. But, there it is, at the beginning of the umpteenth paragraph:

The division as of Wednesday had suffered only one combat-related death.

Not too far, I guess, this bridge. Iraqis aren't "striking" at supply lines en masse. A few irregular militia ambushed a couple of convoys, causing small disruption and a small number of casualties. They have not done any militarily significant damage.

69 posted on 03/27/2003 9:09:15 PM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I think mainly because they would lose all mobility, essentially saying we give up, draw the siege around baghdad

Normally this is a bad idea, especially when you have 5 divisions vs. two. However in this case, when you have no airpower, you don't have any mobility anyway. So they just might do that.

70 posted on 03/27/2003 9:16:11 PM PST by delapaz (now or never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I know--I was one of the posters that said the Basra uprisings where not what they seemed. My point is if an uprising could not be inspired in Basra how do you suppose we will inspire one in Baghdad?
71 posted on 03/27/2003 9:20:15 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Ymani Cricket
flames just keep me warm :)
72 posted on 03/27/2003 9:21:23 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Timm
It was the only article I could find that talked about attacks on our supply lines on short notice.
73 posted on 03/27/2003 9:22:43 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: John H K
The Soviet people never fought for love of Stalin, It seems so far the Iraqi people are fighting, is it for Saddam or for their Iraqi nation (you know right or wrong my country nationalist mentality)?
74 posted on 03/27/2003 9:26:04 PM PST by Destro (Fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Because I believe we have special ops in Baghdad who may help inspire or fan the flames.
75 posted on 03/27/2003 9:26:28 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The talk of the USA running Iraq for years as a military dictatorship via martial law wasn't terribly helpful. We need a puppet regime run by Iraqis.
76 posted on 03/27/2003 9:28:02 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The Brits eventually defeated the Turks, with the help of tribes who were later given what is now Iraq to rule. Their reward for helping T. E. Lawrence, a Brit Capt. who organized and led them--"Lawrrence of Arabia".

I don't see much of a parallel here--different numbers, different weapons.
vaudine
77 posted on 03/27/2003 9:29:30 PM PST by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John H K
I agree. A more realistic analogy would be the Russian attack on Berlin.
78 posted on 03/27/2003 9:31:10 PM PST by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
I'll second that. I'm not sure about the analogy but it is interesting.
79 posted on 03/27/2003 9:34:32 PM PST by wardaddy (G-d speed our fighters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The part of the article that is like today is in these two sentences:
"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."
WE are using the new methods.
80 posted on 03/27/2003 10:19:50 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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