Col E. D. Doyle recalls the imperial shadows that are behind the present conflict in Iraq
In 1910, a prescient German geologist stated that the oil-bearing areas of Mosul and Baghdad were among the richest in the world. At that time, not much was known about world oil resources. But the world's navies were changing, or preparing to change, from coal to oil; petrol vehicles and aircraft were appearing. "The future motive power of the world is oil", a British General Staff paper said in 1919.
After the Ottoman empire disintegrated at the end of the first World War the Royal Navy said that Iraq should be garrisoned to safeguard the supply of oil. Iraq is a huge country, three times larger than England with desert and mountain terrain (and land of legendary fertility near the great Euphrates and Tigris rivers).
The British Army was widely spread after the first World War, from Russia and Silesia to Palestine, Iraq and the Suez Canal area. Money was short and Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff just hadn't the troops to take on the huge commitment of Iraq. (If he had he would have put them all into Ireland - "if we lose Ireland we lose the Empire"). The Royal Navy was the senior service and its requirements had to be met.
The Air Force was looking for an independent role - hoping to avoid being absorbed by the Army and the Navy. Churchill and Sir Hugh Trenchard adopted the idea of "imperial policing by air" with a friendly government and King in Baghdad.
"Suppose we put Faisal on the throne, and keep him there by bombing any recalcitrant Arab villages who 'cock a snook' at him . . ." was Wilson's summary.
In fact many of the recalcitrants were Kurds. The official records show that from 1921 to 1932 the RAF "came to the Government's aid" once a month, on average. Memoirs of senior RAF officers like Sir John Slessor describe their time as young pilots, bombing mud-walled villages and machine-gunning camel trains.
Genuine public unease grew in Britain, although it is said that there was some inter-service rivalry also - the British Army resented the junior service getting the huge command. Whatever about this, the Army criticised the policy as indiscriminate killing. The RAF replied that they dropped leaflets in advance. An attempt to introduce air policing into Palestine in 1936 was barred: aircraft were less effective against urban dissidents and Palestine was more open to media scrutiny than Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was born in 1935. He grew up in an ethos, and under a government, that accepted the idea that if the Kurds got stroppy, they got bombed. He cannot be excused for his own crimes on that ground - but some of his denouncers might be a little less sanctimonious. America's interest in the Middle East was marginal at that time and they were not involved in the bombing.
To complete the background, there is evidence that Churchill was a strong advocate of using gas. He pressed for gas in Gallipoli. Later, chemical weapons were sent to the Middle East when it was thought (wrongly) that the Germans had given them to the Turks. In the Battle of Gaza gas shells were used. In 1919 Churchill said "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes". In 1920, gas was also used against the Kurds of Kirkup.
Whatever the complaints about the weakness of the United Nations organisation, many people in the world have shown a respect, almost an affection, for it. This is combined with an unprecedented public concern about Iraqi civilian casualties. It may be too early to conclude that the American and British governments have modified some of their tactics as a result, but at time of writing, it seems their capability for mass bombardment by Cruise missiles has not been fully used.
These weapons have been steadily improved since the development of small rocket motors made them a practical proposition in the 1960s. Their guidance systems, in particular, are much less prone to failure.
We are seeing, once again, the inability of Middle Eastern countries to compete technologically with the West and, in particular, with America. Saddam has been making the kind of speeches that he made before the last Gulf War. One should be careful about taking translated rhetoric literally - it may seem more bombastic than it actually is. But it should be clear since 1991 that the most elaborate ground defences are almost death traps in open country, when under attack by an enemy with air supremacy.
The Iraqi military engineers showed their abilities in Kuwait. But tanks cannot manoeuvre; artillery becomes unusable and immovable; the infantry get buried in their own defences. The ground air defences themselves become vulnerable; air-to-ground missiles can travel back down the defence radar signals.
When we mix in the kind of "warrior" contempt for day-to-day user maintenance and even care for proper usage, sophisticated weapons become liabilities. More technicians are needed to repair damage and carry out alignment. The warriors, who are in charge in such forces cannot see that and will neither allot the troops nor provide the facilities for sound technician training.
In such circumstances, maintenance officers become wise in their generation. Some have told the writer that, as long as their radar equipments roll on Independence Days, dipping their dish antennae as they pass the president, few know or care whether the internal circuitry is performing properly. Yet poor countries may have paid heavily for such exotic equipment.
Repairs have been made easier nowadays by the use of replaceable modules in much electronic equipment. But the modules themselves are expensive. Manufacturers will repair them at a cost - but this may not be a practical solution in war.
Iraq probably has, or had before she invaded Kuwait, some of the best technical personnel in Third World armies, though she was not a Third World country until the disastrous Gulf War. Her air force, except for some vulnerable helicopters, and air defences are destroyed. Much of the equipment was bought from Russia and China at considerable expense. What are the options for a country like Iraq? This will be considered another day.