Dashing Brits
Did the United Kingdom's influence in its heyday match the United States' today? Two Hegemonies provides an answer; but "empire" might be the better word.
To the Editor:
Niall Ferguson's assertion ("Hegemony or Empire?" September/October 2003) that the British army's capture of Baghdad in 1917 was similar to the U.S.-led coalition's operation in 2003 is inexact. Far from sweeping to Baghdad in a matter of weeks, the United Kingdom's first attempt to capture the city in 1915 resulted in a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Turks at Kut. Ferguson is correct in stating that General Sir Frederick Maude captured Baghdad in March 1917, but the campaign did not move fast until its final stage: Maude required two months to clear the west bank of the Tigris before he could advance.
A historical footnote: U.S. Marines repaired the British army's World War I field cemetery at Kut earlier this year during their dash (a real one this time) to Baghdad.
GORDON PETERSON
Springfield, Virginia
Related
Did the United Kingdom's influence in its heyday match the United States' today? Two Hegemonies provides an answer; but "empire" might be the better word.
As Tony Blair gets lambasted for backing the Iraq war, it is worth noting that the current strain in U.S.-British relations is hardly the first induced by war. Twenty-four years ago, London was dismayed by Washington's lack of support during the Falklands War -- an episode that shows both how complex the allies' relationship has been during times of crisis and how resilient it can be afterward.
