Rating: 
Summary: An outstanding work of scholarship
Review: An outstanding work of scholarship by a well-read historian, CHURCHILL'S FOLLY should be mandatory reading for anyone who is seriously interested in Iraq. Since this means most Americans, CHURCHILL'S FOLLY should be required reading across the land. Make sure your teachers, professors and friends have read this well-written, carefully researched book by one of the best young historians around today.
Rating: 
Summary: Catherwood's Folly
Review: Catherwood delights in irony. He finds it ironic that Churchill would appease the Turks (who were seeking to define their national territory after the fall of the Ottoman Empire), and would later lead the anti-appeasement effort against the agressive expansion of the German Reich. It was ironic that Catherwood would characterize any undertaking as a 'folly' in that Catherwood's essay is more suited to an undergraduate paper than an 'expert's' book.
Catherwood aggressively scours quotations for errors in transliteration, all which he notes, but he fails to provide any depth or background to shaping of the former empire's lands. Kurds, Sunni-Arabs, and Shia-Arabs, as he notes, were gathered to form the new nation of Iraq. How were these peoples administered under the Ottomans? Why were the boundaries of Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq drawn where they are? Where were the boundaries of the Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra vilayets? If Catherwood knows, he is not telling. We are told that Churchill cared more about saving money and protecting British interest in Iran, but we are not told what factors or even what districts were included in forming the new nation.
Catherwood is reported to be a political advisor and cautious tone of the book well reflects that-- there seems to be no difference of historical opinion in which Cahterwood cannot find a middle ground suited to his own thinking.
Catherwood repeats ad infinitum the points that the Shariffian dynastys were not local to their new kingdoms and that Churchill was desperate to save money, but surely these points could have been detailed with enough depth in a small article.
This book is a huge waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: How to Marry Money with Strategy
Review: Christopher Catherwood rightly reminds his audience that the course of history results from the decisions and whims of outstanding individuals as well as impersonal forces and inevitable economic factors (pg. 13). In March 1921, Winston Churchill, the newly appointed Secretary of State for the colonies and his advisers re-mapped the Middle East at the Cairo conference to primarily advance British interests in the region from the ruins of the disintegrated Ottoman Empire (pg. 125).
The imperial, pan-Arabic ambitions of the Hashemite family, bone fide senior descendants of Prophet Mohammed, also played a key role in modeling the region (pg. 47, 50-51, 102, 123, 129, 143, 156). The ill-fated Sykes-Pico Agreement made in 1916 between France and Britain to contain Tsarist Russia in the region became meaningless after the fall of the Russian imperial government in 1917 (pg. 56, 64). However, this agreement was not far from the minds of conference participants. The Sykes-Pico Agreement has been perceived in some quarters as both a self-inflicted curse on the British and a betrayal to the Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule (pg. 42-43, 53, 61-62, 78-79, 122).
In addition, events outside the direct control of conference participants were shaping the outcome of this conference. The war-weary and very battered British Empire faced severe budgetary constraints following the ruinous Great War. Furthermore, the war between Greece and Turkey waged after the end of WWI represented an additional constraint placed on conference participants, and especially on Churchill whose position in the cabinet depended solely on the goodwill of Lloyd George, his political boss (pg. 107-108, 161). Churchill strongly opposed the disastrous pan-Hellenism of Prime Minister Lloyd George that ultimately resulted in the fall of the government by the end of 1922 (pg. 38-39, 60-61, 80, 198). Churchill sensibly believed in the appeasement of Turkey to avoid a widespread Muslim rebellion in some British colonies, one of the many ironies of his long political life (pg. 70, 82, 98).
One of the legacies of the Cairo conference was the creation of Iraq, the result of the amalgamation of the Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul. This creation had disastrous consequences for the Kurds until the instauration of the no-fly zones in 1991 and for the Shia Muslims until the toppling of former President Saddam Hussein in 2003 (pg. 26, 92, 106-107, 125, 135-136, 150, 221-224). At the insistence of Feisal, a Sunni Arab and the first King of Iraq, the British integrated the predominantly Sunny Kurds into Iraq to better balance the Shia Muslim majority in Southern Iraq with the Sunni Arabs in the center (pg. 26). The British wrongly assumed that nationalism was stronger than religion (pg. 229-230).
As Catherwood correctly points out, the real problem was ultimately how to square imperial designs of France and Britain in the region with President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and especially with the policy of self-determination described in the fifth point (pg. 66, 112, 172-173).
Britain had to do as if the Iraqi people had acclaimed overwhelmingly Feisal, while pulling the strings behind the scene to get the desired result (pg. 96, 124, 131, 151-152, 163, 170, 188). However, the British wrongly underestimated Feisal's determination to become his own man in the eyes of his new subjects (pg. 153, 171, 176, 185-190, 197). Unlike the French, the British did not, however, use force to get rid of Feisal but left him on his throne as the best deal available to them to preserve their interests in the region (pg. 142-144, 174-175).
To the British, having an Arab King in Iraq and having some form of indirect British rule there were not incompatible objectives. The British Empire was largely built on indirect rule that turned out to be a cheap way to run an empire (pg. 58, 142, 212). Surprisingly from the vintage of 21st century observers, oil was the missing factor in British political establishment's decision to become embroiled in Iraq (pg. 66-68, 113). In contrast, the British generals and Americans were not oblivious to the future potential of Middle Eastern oil (pg. 75, 178). However, the British ultimately stayed to obtain the oil of Iraq (pg. 205).
British overreach around the world after WWI and the disastrous British policy in the war between Greece and Turkey pushed Churchill to sensibly privilege budgetary considerations above anything else (pg. 69, 95-96, 116-118, 169, 182). Empire building on the cheap by propping up a friendly regime with the help of the sole Royal Air Force met the fierce resistance of the military establishment and their paymasters who were not enthusiastic about deep cuts in the Army's budget (pg. 72, 77, 101, 137, 165-169). At the same time, Churchill knew that he was weakening the Empire's capacity to crush any eventual rebellion against British interference in the new country as subsequent events proved him right (pg. 74, 81-83, 94). These contradictory considerations about how best to manage an occupied territory for the time needed to foster a friendly regime (read a capitalist democracy) are of course not foreign to the ultimate success of the Operation Iraqi Freedom (pg. 87, 133, 154).
The map of today's Middle East and the problems still associated with this map owe their nature to the decisions made by Churchill and his advisers at the conference of Cairo (pg. 109, 227). A successful transition to a Shia-dominated federal Iraq that preserves the rights and freedoms of Iraqi minorities could be one of the key factors to help isolate the most hawkish Iranian powerbrokers and ultimately facilitate the beginning of a serious dialogue involving Israel, the U.S. and Iran (pg. 227). Furthermore, this successful transition in the core territory of Shia Islam could further foster tolerance between the two ancient branches of Islam in the countries of the region to the benefit of everybody (pg. 227-230).
Rating:
Summary: Great book for ordinary readers
Review: CHURCHILL'S FOLLY is a great book for ordinary readers.
One point: Catherwood has been at Cambridge since 1978. He lectures for their Institute of Continuing Education, which is part of Cambridge University. He lectured some years ago for courses organised by folk at the University's Centre (sic) of International Studies. Only snobs and pedants would say that the highly rated Institute of Continuing Education is not a full part of Cambridge University. His (very) long acknowledgements make it very clear who he is and for whom he teaches. Cambridge Continuing Education classes have pupils ranging from Nobel prizewinners to housewives.
This book will not win the Pulitzer. Nor does it aim to compete with the Macmillan and similar books, to which Catherwood makes copious references in his own work.
What it does is to give us a helpful snapshot of how Winston Churchill was involved in the creation of Iraq in 1921, something that has been in many newspaper articles in recent months.
Lloyd George was pro-Greek. As Catherwood does tell us, Lloyd George thought that Venizvelos was the greatest Greek since Demosthenes, a quote he got from Macmillan's book (see the numerous endnotes).
I am keeping my copy. Don't let snobs and pedants mislead you. This is a helpful book that you don't need a degree in history to read. That is the point of Continuing Education, and Catherwood fulfills his task.
Rating:
Summary: not worth the paper it is printed on
Review: I did not like the book, which is fundamentally flawed from the concept and proposition. Sorry to have wasted my time going through it.
Rating:
Summary: Kirkus Review is right: this work is outstanding
Review: Kirkus Reviews have given this outstanding book a rave review. I agree - this book is the business. It is clearly written in a way that anyone with a college education can understand, yet is based upon solid research in Churchill's archives. Like Kirkus, I think that this is a book that everyone should read.
Rating:
Summary: My local bookstore is buying 75 copies - it is THAT good....
Review: My local bookstore is buying 75 copies of this book. Yes, folks, it really is THAT good. (And it sold 30 copies in the first week!)If even the great Winston Churchill could mess up in Iraq, what hope for today's political leaders? At least they could try to learn from history. CHURCHILL'S FOLLY should be read by every Senator, Congressman, Presidential candidate and more besides. Make sure everyone you know has read this timely and well-written book.
Rating:
Summary: An outstanding example of microhistory
Review: Some excellent books have been written about the macrohistory of the Middle East, of which the overall history of the region by Bernard Lewis is by far the best. Then as for the reconstruction of the entire Middle East after World War 1, there is Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin.
However Catherwood's book is in an altogether and equally valid historical tradition.
Like the illustrious French Annaliste school, he examines a small part of the overall picture in great detail. This is a close up photograph of a particular tree in the forest, rather than an aerial picture of the whole wood.
In particular he looks at Churchill, and why Winston Churchill acted as he did, and with Churchill's Iraq policy in detail. (Churchill also created Palestine, but as this has been written to death, I presume that Catherwood sensibly avoided it, in order to replicate what is being written on elsewhere).
So this is as much a book on the European/Arab interface as it is on Iraq. It isn't a history of Iraq - and Catherwood helpfully lists many such detailed country specific histories in his extensive bibliography.
Catherwood is clearly a former policy wonk, and that, to me, is what makes the book so fascinating - he evidently understands the political process well and this shines through in the book.
There are, contrary to Green's sad review, maps in this book, and, most important, the one that Churchill himself used.
While Catherwood is careful not to go into too much contemporary analogy, one can all the same get a good idea of how our present rulers must have been acting in recent times.
This is detailed, up close, history at its very best, and with Iraq in the news at the moment it is well worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Informative analysis of an empire in decay
Review: The most enduring legacy of the First World War was the decision by the victorious Allies to dismember the Ottoman Empire. Stripping the Turks of their domination of the Middle East had a seductive logic to it, particularly for European Powers who wanted to restore their own hold on empire. They posed as liberators, as the guarantors of civilisation and modernism, freeing the Arab peoples from the oppression and darkness represented by a decaying, barbaric Ottoman Empire.
Catherwood here dissects the assumption that the Arabs wanted freedom from Turkey - he argues that most of them remained loyal throughout the war, but that a handful of prominent families saw an opportunity to seize power and secure British and French support for their political coups.
Churchill was colonial secretary in 1921. He assumes direct responsibility for the creation of what would become Iraq - a decision which has returned to haunt British politicians in the 21st century. He was convinced that the Hashemites were popular rulers, and welded together a number of Ottoman provinces to provide them with the kingdom of Iraq. From the start, this was an artificial country, impossible to reconfigure as a nation. It contained too many different peoples with too many different agendas for there ever to be unity or peace here.
Almost immediately, British troops and airmen were dragged into service to try to enforce national unity and prop up the regime and Hashemite dynasty. Catherwood pulls no punches in his denunciation of Churchill's role in this botched piece of colonialism. The incompetence, the lack of information, the misuse of information, and the ego and arrogance of the leading political figures provide a salutary lesson for history ... one which appears to have gone unread.
A fascinating, stimulating, and accessible account (despite the complexity of the subject), and an important corrective to many of the contemporary assumptions about the state of the Middle East.
Rating:
Summary: The previous review sadly lacks historical perspective
Review: the previous review sadly lacks historical perspective. No such state as "Mesopotamia" existed before the First World War, so it could hardly have been "decades" in preparation. The manuscripts Catherwood uses are mainly Colonial Office papers in the Churchill collection. And the present (2004) Bush Administration is hardly mentioned, except in the appendix. Whatever your views on Bush, CHURCHILL'S FOLLY can be read by Democrats AND Republicans alike.
|
