What are some connections to WW1 and the Iraq war?

Question

i need to know exact connections. and a lot pleaseee! thank you!

Answer 1

World War One

Turkish soldier taken prisoner in Mesopotamia by the Allies, 1917 The Ottoman Empire, which included the provinces of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, entered World War One on the side of the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary), and immediately became a target for British imperial ambitions.

Winston Churchill conceived the disastrous campaign in Gallipoli as means of occupying Constantinople, while others, largely in India, favoured sending invading Allied forces via a longer route through Basra to Baghdad. They believed the area was suitable for colonisation, and thought an invasion would meet little resistance.

'...the British decided to push on towards Baghdad.'

In India a substantial Anglo-Indian army was raised, which landed in Basra in November 1914. The local defending forces soon fled, and the British decided to push on towards Baghdad. They totally miscalculated the strength and determination of the Turkish (Ottoman) forces, however, who trapped them in a terrible siege in Kut al-Amara on the Tigris. The Anglo-Indian force surrendered in April 1916 and many of the soldiers perished in prisoner-of-war camps. New British forces eventually arrived in Basra in greater numbers, and by March 1917 were able to capture Baghdad.

By the end of World War One, British forces were more or less in control of the three provinces and a shaky British administration in Baghdad had to decide on their future. The Ottoman Empire had collapsed, leaving the former Arab provinces in limbo, and the colonial powers of Britain and France aimed to absorb them into their empires; however, the Arab and other inhabitants felt strongly that they had been promised independence.

'The Arabs claimed this was a veiled colonialism...'

Under strong pressure from the United States, a sort of compromise was evolved whereby Britain and France were given mandates for the administration of these provinces, under international supervision, by the League of Nations. The Arabs claimed this was a veiled colonialism, because there was only an indefinite promise of independence.

Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time called for supplies of poisonous gas.

Indiscriminate air power was used to quell the revolt of the region's tribesmen, methods the British admitted did not win them friends and, as one of them said, implanted undying hatred of the British among the people of the area, and a desire for revenge.

The mandate united the three disparate provinces under the imported Hashimite King Faisal, from the Hijaz region of Arabia. Apart from its natural geographical differences, the new Iraq was a complex mix of ethnic and religious groups. In particular the rebellious Kurds in the north had little wish to be ruled from Baghdad, while in the south the tribesmen and s**+'s had a similar abhorrence of central control. In implementing their mandate, the British had certainly sown the seeds of future unrest.

'The British imposed a monarchy and a form of democracy...'

There were other contentious issues. The Iraqis deeply resented the borders imposed on them that cut them off from Kuwait, a mini-state that they believed to be a part of their country. These borders also meant that Iraq had only limited access to the waters of the Gulf. The British imposed a monarchy and a form of democracy but, even after the grant of formal independence in 1930, most Iraqis believed that the British really ruled the country.

In fact Iraq remained a satellite of Britain for the next three decades, under the terms of a treaty signed the same year (1930), which included the retention of British military bases and an agreement to train the Iraqi army. Ironically, this army became a breeding ground of resentment against the British presence, particularly amongst new nationalist officers. They deeply resented both the British policies in Palestine and the local civilian politicians, who were seen as British puppets. After the death of King Faisal in 1933 the country was virtually ruled by a group of colonels who saw themselves as the future liberators of an oppressed Iraq.

'They deeply resented both the British policies in Palestine and the local civilian politicians...'

During World War Two the British were once again dragged into Iraq - to protect the oil fields in the north and to put down a pro-n**i coup amongst the army officers. Some 3,000 Iraqi troops were killed, and 3,000 nationalist officers were purged. The British remained to support the monarchy, and a pro-British prime minister, Nuri al-Said, was in place until, in 1958, monarch and politicians were swept away in a vicious nationalist army revolt.

Sound vaguely familier to our current situation??  Replace the British with the US??

Answer 2

None...

Answer 3

Your a idiot, there are none!

Answer 4

We are still picking up occasional Mosin Nagant rifles from the battlefield in Iraq which were the state of the art in infantry weapons during WW1 for the Russians.  

Answer 5

r****d there is none

Answer 6

Perhaps you should study history instead of asking others to explain i to you.