Supported by diverse literary, archival, visual and oral English-language sources, in World War I in Mesopotamia Nadia Atia provides a novel approach to cultural history. She tracks the changing British perceptions of Iraq from 1907 to 1921, wherein the war served as the tipping point. Atia recounts the (in)famous military campaign – the Siege of Kut in 1916, while situating this military narrative within a larger discussion, that of clashing empires, the psychological nature of perceptions, and the mysterious and motivating power of prestige. Though this work is geographically concerned with Iraq, Atia's broader questions engage with Britain and “empire”.
The chapters are chronological, and Atia indicates changing British perceptions of Iraq: from Orientalist tropes of the exotic; to wartime impressions of a forgotten front in a hellish landscape; to the transfigured skylines as the proof of modernity. Chapter 1 covers the immediate pre-war period. Chapter 2 focuses on the Mesopotamian campaign's early years, 1914–16, including the Siege of Kut. Chapter 3 follows the immediate aftermath of the siege. Chapter 4 encompasses the occupation of Baghdad until the war's end, 1916–18, and the subsequent British modernization of Iraq. Chapter 5 narrates Britain's decision making for the Mandate of Iraq, especially following the Revolt of 1920.
It is not difficult for Atia to convince her readers that British perceptions of Iraq changed before and after the war. Perceptions of a place can, and often do, change because of traumatic exchanges and occupation. More interesting, however, and somewhat more difficult to achieve is when she examines prestige in general, and “British prestige in the East” more specifically.
Prestige is introduced in the context of the British public indignantly processing the Siege of Kut. Created in August 1916, the Mesopotamian Commission's objective was to inquire into the conduct of the Mesopotamian front and appease the public, demanding answers and accountability. The Commission's report was published in June 1917, and prestige is absent from the findings.
Yet Atia asserts that the Mesopotamian Commission archives emphasize “the preservation of British prestige in the East” (p. 127). Defined as a conjuring trick, and power based on reputation and racial hierarchy, prestige could keep the empire afloat. Through a Saidian lens, Atia argues that to wield prestige was to impress and master the “Oriental mind”. Therefore, she writes, “one of the reasons for the continued escalation of operations in Mesopotamia was the belief that any cessation in activity would be perceived as weakness by both Arabs and Indians” (p. 132). In this manner, she examines the Mesopotamian campaign with British decision-makers' eyes towards India, and not towards Istanbul, the Ottoman capital. In the midst of fighting a world war, Britain continued to think about preserving the future of its empire in India and extending it to include Iraq.
Related to prestige is the matter of racial discourse. Atia explains that British officials believed in racialized hierarchies so that they could justify prestige. These British perceptions of race and biological inferiority are manifest throughout the book. On the one hand, Atia devotes pages to detailing the ways in which the “Arabs” as a homogenous group were perceived as thieving, treacherous and duplicitous; on the other, she demonstrates the British misperceptions of the Indian troops who fought under General Townshend. The Sixth (Poona) Division was held in suspicion with regard to their loyalty. The British servicemen did not care to know if these Indian servicemen were Muslim or not. They conflated religion, ethnicity and loyalty.
The parts of chapters that utilize near-contemporary popular British novels are extremely commendable in formulating the British perceptions of Iraq. The ordinary nature of popular literature makes it an excellent source to see if an idea had taken hold, and to what extent it was widespread. Atia analyses The Navy in Mesopotamia and The Gates of Kut, both written in 1917, in one of the sections about race. The British soldiers featured in these novels dress as Arabs to advance the plotline, even convincing their fellow servicemen. Atia argues that the narrativized duplicity and distrust, which British servicemen believed characterized Iraqi Arabs and tribesmen, is “personified in the Arab who is not an Arab” (p. 95). In the stories, the act of “becoming” an Arab gives the particular British soldiers power over their fooled colleagues. However, real Iraqi Arabs cannot replicate this hierarchy (p. 97). Atia's analysis of these novels in particular – novels that are not just topically relevant, but were also well-received at the time – advocates for including literary perspectives on genres often dominated by War Office files.
The standard canon of the British in Iraq are Bell, Cox and Wilson. To these, Atia adds new voices from memoirs and diaries of servicemen and nurses who fought and worked in Iraq during the war. These new voices account for class differences and include more women, like the nurses Eunice Winifred Lemere-Goff and Mary Ann Brown. Atia remarks that Lemere-Goff and Brown would probably not have been able to travel outside of Britain otherwise, due to their station. Therefore, contained in their descriptions of horrid Arabs and the heat, is something of a liberating adventure. Atia skilfully demonstrates that perceptions are not monolithic and to assess evolving British perceptions necessitates more inclusion. Thus, more broadly, examining perceptions will continue to create diversity in voices and methodologies.
While Atia has given space to the public and brought literature into the fold, her terminology undermines these contributions to changing British perceptions of Iraq. Atia calls the particular region “Mesopotamia” throughout, and, at times, refers to its inhabitants as “Mesopotamians” (p. 57). These terms are British perceptions already. Although this project is a study of British perceptions of the region, and not of Ottoman–Iraqi perceptions, to call the region Mesopotamia uncritically, because the sources do, obfuscates some of her overall objectives.
World War I in Mesopotamia carefully reflects upon the perceptions of Britain's waning imperial structure and all of those involved in defending it. Atia smartly contributes to the critique of this imperial structure and the inclusion of more voices in piecing together the edges of the war.
