Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq

by Christopher Catherwood

As Britain's colonial secretary in the 1920s, Winston Churchill made a mistake with calamitous consequences and unseen repercussions extending into the twenty-first century.

Genres: History, Middle East, Nonfiction, Politics, War, Military Fiction

268 pages, Hardcover

First published July 1, 2004

About the author

Christopher Catherwood is a writer and historian based in Cambridge. He has taught at the University of Cambridge and the University of Richmond, Virginia. An expert on Winston Churchill, his previous books include the bestseller Winston’s Folly.

Reviews

[Peter Corrigan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat of an oddity,this short work and I wavered between 2 and 3 stars. I expected a fairly straightforward history but perhaps the title should have warned me. There is an odd sensationalist aspect to the title. It was not Churchill alone who created Iraq but it probably sounded better as a title to sell books. The author has several bizarre tendencies you don't often find in histories. He repeatedly goes off of short tangents which can be ok, but he is prone to say 'but that is not what this book is about', as he goes off on something the book is ostensibly not about. That is done more than several times. He is also prone to interject opinions on the future impact of various decisions which can be almost distracting. There is a an afterword where this seems more appropriate. Like many westerners (he is British) he appears to be full of guilt and shame over things that 'we' probably had far less power over than he (and many others) like to believe. The Ottoman Empire was around for about 600 years but everything that has happened in the Middle East is somehow entirely the 'fault' of the Brits and French who was there less than 50, sometime considerably less. Yes, the Brits drew some borders but they partially followed Ottoman provinces (vilayets). The idea of independent nation states barely existed in this region, but Catherwood seems to be believe 'self-determination' was denied these people by the evil, racist white man. When in fact it is pretty clear it was all done because Britain was flat broke after WW1 and Churchill wanted to save money as fast as possible. Islam is the sole unifying idea in this region (certainly in 1920) and while split between Sunni and Shia, I do not fault the Brits for not making sure that every Sunni lived apart from every Shia. Perhaps that would have been a mini-India 1948 rehearsal. The Brits were all but gone by 1923 and Iraq had plenty of opportunity thereafter to remake itself in the next 80 years. The failure to 'create' a Kurdish state at the Cairo Conference is also belabored but as he rightly points out that might very well have brought the Turks into 'Iraq' (something the British feared greatly), as they were were just finished up with evicting the Greeks from Anatolia and very much revived from their defeat in WW1. Who is to say they would have stopped there? History is far more dynamic and complex than it is 'all the fault' of the imperialists. The books does use a lot of primary documents (cables and letters among the principals) which is a real positive in letting the period speak for itself.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

The problems of the West with ISIS make this book highly topical. In it Christopher Catherwood shows that Iraq is a country created by morons in a hurry for reasons that had nothing to do with the needs of the people living in the region. Consequently, Iraq's problems never solve themselves, they simply get worse on a perpetual basis.

In 1922, the European powers met in Cairo in order to finalize a map of the middle east and to install political regimes where necessary all of which was accomplished in three weeks.

Iraq was an administrative area that the British seized with its Indian army when the Ottoman empire collapsed at the end of World War II.

Ottoman Iraq had been comprised three vilayets:

Mosul Province (Sunni and Kurdish speaking)
Baghdad Province (Sunni and Arab speaking)
Basra Province (Shiite and Arab speaking)

All three provinces where very distinct culturally. They were ruled as one entity because it suited the purposes of the Ottomans to do so.

Unfortunately the Europeans diplomats at the Cairo conference decided to perpetrate the Ottoman status quo simply because it suited their purposes to do so. France was willing to let England dispose of Palestine and Iraq as it saw fit in exchange for free hand in Lebanon. England wanted to extricate itself from a money losing obligation as quickly as possible. In order to pay off Faisal of the Saudi Hashemite family for his services in the war against the Turks, he was made King of Iraq.

Faisal certainly had the wrong background for the task that was handed to him and ultimately the Hashemite dynasty would fall to be replaced by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Perhaps Iraqis deserve some of the blame for their own problems but the diplomats at Cairo certainly made every mistake imaginable. Catherwood proves in his book that the European negotiators arrived at Cairo with virtually no understanding of Iraq's history and culture. He quotes a cable that Churchill the British Colonial Secretary sent to a London staff member in which he asks:

"The Wahabi sect is at feud with the Sunni. Is it also at feud with the Shia? What are the principa doctrinal and ritualistic differences involved between the Shia, the Sunni and the Shabi Mohammedans? A very brief answer will suffice."

In other words Churchill knew nothing and was not prepared to take the time to learn. The Conference wrapped up in three weeks as planned. We are still living with its consequences.

[Bob Draben · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 1921, the British completely redrew the map of the Middle East. They and the French had toppled the weak Ottoman Empire and took over much of their territories, most going to the British.

The Ottomans had ruled what is now called Iraq in three separate colonis, with the non-Arab Kurds in the north,the Shites mostly in the south, and the Sunni, mostly in the center. Thus the major factions of Islam were largely separated under different rulers, and the Indo-European Kurds were largely separated from the Arabs.

Catherwood's book details the major problems the British faced in a four-year period, including attacks by insurgents. Much of went on then is being echoed today. Churchill's folly has become America's folly.

[Yeo_heng_hau YEO · Rating 4 out of 5]

Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq

This is an invaluable read for those keen to delve into the recent history of Iraq. Looking at what the country was forced to go through after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christopher Catherwood's account provides additional insight and a better understanding of Iraq's present predicament.

Iraq ( or what was called Mesopotamia) was part of the Ottoman Empire. When the empire broke up after the First World War, different parts of the empire were left to be controlled or managed by the various European victors in accordance with the mandate of the League of Nations. Great Britain held the mandate for Iraq.

Catherwood's account, drawn largely from the archives of official documents now available for public viewing, traced how Churchill had installed Faisal from the Saudi royal family, to run Iraq under Great Britain's control. Catherwood has termed Churchill's action a folly as not only was Faisal an ineffective ruler, but many pressing issues such as the position of the Kurds and the British practically washing its hands of responsibility by only leaving behind an Air Force team to assist Faisal due to Churchill's concern to limit cutting down on expenses.

[Abbas Hawazin · Rating 2 out of 5]

poorly written, repeats itself so much, and gets bogged down in details that it misses the big picture. the conclusions are stated with such lack of authority that it's hard to take this seriously. read this as an extended blog post, not scholarship of any sort.

[Margaret Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book describes an era any decent nation would be ashamed to remember – low, dishonest, prejudiced and corrupt. I had to stop halfway through before I committed murder.

With the end of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the British Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia out of its former territory, plus the countless millions of Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Britain became the largest Muslim Empire in the world. 'It would appear, therefore,' wrote Churchill, 'that we should initiate and steadily and consistently pursue a policy of friendship with Turkey and with the Arabs.'

That was the trouble with Churchill, he was all words.

There is a tendency with Catherwood and similar British authors I have read, to accept Britain’s right to direct the future of nations it knew nothing about and cared less, unless it was good for Britain. A bit like the Raj, Britain’s ‘jewel in the crown’ as Catherwood describes it, ‘the gigantic colony that accounted for so much of Britain’s prestige in the world’. A pity about the Indians.

Here are the French Prime Minister Clemenceau and David Lloyd George carving up the Middle East like two boys with a chocolate cake. Here is Churchill, exhibiting all the racial biases of his time and class, more worried about how much money The Empire was costing than the poor residents who had to put up with it.

Meanwhile, British and French troops were subduing their newly acquired Arab territories as brutally as they could. Regarding the Iraqi Revolt against British Colonial Rule in 1920, ‘It was essential to give those Arabs on the lower Euphrates a good lesson’ wrote the Chief of the Imperial General Staff Sir Henry Wilson. ‘Rebel tribesmen with comparatively primitive weapons were attacked from the air by the Royal Air Force.’ On 29th August 1920 Churchill wrote, ‘I think you should certainly proceed with the experimental work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment on recalcitrant natives without inflicting grave injury upon them.’ Many hundreds of Iraqi rebels died in the attacks.

‘The rest of 1920 saw the British forces undertake all kinds of vicious reprisals – not just confiscating all the weapons the rebels had used, but also burning down villages and engaging in other actions that today we would regard as overly punitive if not downright barbaric.’

And what does Churchill do while all this is going on? Where does he go? On a couple of little holidays in the South of France. After all, ‘[we are] utterly sick of pouring out money and men on these newly acquired territories.’

Get the picture?

[John Hayward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading "Winston's Folly: Imperialism and the Creation of Modern Iraq" by Christopher Catherwood is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion. Reminded me of the more modern blow-by-avoidable-blow, twist-by-avoidable-twist chronicles of the Brexit soap opera by @ShippersUnbound.

[Rowland Pasaribu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great Britain and a few bit players met in Cairo in 1922 and carved up the southwest Asia. The ramifications of this event are still being felt today. This is a well-researched exploration of the subject, but it is a bit too narrow in its focus. The database covered (mostly Winston’s own correspondence and cables) is a bit narrow, and the attempt to integrate the perspectives of other sources is valiant but insufficient. Still, this is a fascinating read and the information gained from the, again, overused resources is quite good.

The book provides a non-lionized portrait of the man. He is not so much a dynamic world figure as he is an ambitious politician and a penny-pincher who simply wanted to get a job done (get Britain out of paying for this region) and not do the best job for the future. He is entertaining, though, as his individualistic streak does play havoc with people from time to time.

There are a lot of parallels to the 2003-05 period that the author makes but does not overemphasize. The conflicting motives of being where you are not wanted, minimizing damage to reputation and forces, and having to answer for the use of resources back home characterize this period for Britain as well as 2003-05 for the USA in Iraq.

Oil did not seem to be as important a factor. While it was mentioned a few times and Churchill was himself aware of the need for oil resources for naval superiority, it did not loom large in his decision calculus.

I enjoyed the relish that the author demonstrated when debunking the version of events from T. E. Lawrence’s Pillars of Wisdom, and he was specific about which “Lawrence of Arabia” myths to pop. As a boy who had been much moved by that movie it gave me some chuckles of regret.

The author does show some restraint when generalizing from this historical event to the present. As it was being released in 2006 events were still to unfold.

I had some problems with this book but that was mainly because I wanted to know more. However, I was very satisfied by what I learned and would commend it highly.

[George Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

This tedious book is an thorough history of the post World War I Middle East, from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire to the creation of its current nation structure. Winston Churchill had the unfortunate responsibility of running the remnants of the Ottoman Middle East empire under the League of Nations mandate with limited resources and very little support from his PM. Since most of the oil resources in the Middle East were not known in the 1920s, the UK was interested in getting out as cheaply and quickly as possible. Britain did what it did best in setting up colonies in 3rd world countries: putting groups that did not get along in the save state to reduce the chances of nation building and resistance yo colonial rule. Long term stability of the region was not a priority. A must read if you want to understand how we got to where we are today in the Middle East. Four starts rather than 5 due to the tedious writing style.

[Glenn Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

What do you get when you artificially create a bunch of countries that have never existed before? Irish liberation for one! Next you create perpetual turmoil which creates the rifts that allow ISIS to occur. The events of today will ripple for the next 100 years. The decisions of 1920-1922 might have looked good at the time, but the end result is still to be seen. This is a fairly good book about the creation of Iraq and Churchill's role it. Iraq was pretty much doomed from the start according to this book. While hindsight is 20/20, the author gives some pretty good examples as to why.

How do the Irish fit in? With all the British troops elsewhere, the Irish rose up and regained their independence. A simplified form, but WWI did drain the British economy of funds there was not much to be done except accept this and work with this and the new nations of the Middle East. It was important to not let the new nations fall into the hands of the Bolsheviks.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The state of Iraq was conceived in error. The English drew lines on maps and thus created a country with separate populations--Kurd, Sunni, Shia. Thus, the problem of a nonunified populace occurred at the beginning.

Then, the English favored Sunnis, thus creating conflicts among the three major population groups.

Budgetary problems led to England running its "mandate" on the cheap.

Valuable lessons on intervention into foreign countries. . . .

[Howard C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally selected for research on Gertrude Bell, this had little on her, but definitely has me thinking -- and rereading it -- about Churchill's role. While I hate to call something "revisionist", it, like a number of recent works, is fairly rough on T.E. Lawrence, who may well be more of legend than reality.

[Brian Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A valuable book that demonstrates that Churchill's policy was driven by military cost cutting in an attempt to balance Britain's post WWI budget. He argues - on the basis of Winston's copious note that Churchill meticulously kept - that oil was not the original motive for Iraq, although it may have motivated latter governments.

[Roger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uneven, overlong and repetitive but valuable for the insights it provides about the "country", region & history. And, by the way, is there any comparable figure in modern western hagiography to Churchill? Rand maybe? ugh.

[ETF · Rating 3 out of 5]

Want to understand what will happen in Iraq? This will tell you.

[Raquel Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book to understand the Midddle East.
Needs a bit of updating, but that's history for you doesn't stop.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book for those who want an overview of the middle east countries and how they were decided upon.