What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Iraq
In response to current events, Charles Tripp has updated his incisive book A History of Iraq to include developments as recent as mid-2002. Since its establishment by the British in the 1920s, Iraq has witnessed the rise and fall of successive authoritarian regimes, competing ruthlessly for power and resources. This struggle culminated in the dictatorship of Saddam Husain, who still maintains his grip over a fragmented and increasingly isolated society. Tripp's book traces Iraq's political history from its nineteenth-century roots in the Ottoman empire, to the development of the state, its transformation from monarchy to republic and the rise of the Ba'th party and the ascendancy and current rule of Saddam Husain. This is a story of social conflict, of power struggles between rival clans, of hostility and wars with neighboring states, as well as of their aftermath, and Iraq's deteriorating relations with the West. A History of Iraq offers incisive analysis of the making of a modern state and how it creates its own distinctive politics. Charles Tripp is Professor of Politics with reference to the Middle East at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He is the General Editor of the Cambridge Middle East Studies Series and author of A History of Iraq (3rd Edition, CUP, 2007) and Islam and the Moral Economy: the challenge of capitalism (CUP, 2006).
346 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
33 people are currently reading
485 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 22, 2016
This book is a mix of incredible scholarly knowledge, an excellent argument, and a somewhat stiff writing style and narrow topical range. Tripp surveys Iraqi history since the Ottoman Empire with a heavy focus on the Hashemite and Republican periods. The level of detail, however, is somewhat mind numbing: there are so many people with very similar names, and Tripp doesn't go into much of the biographical detail that normally helps me sort through complex stories with lots of characters. He also focuses almost exclusively on politics, excluding cultural, social, gender, and other lines of history that I'd like to know more about. He's very good with the politics, but that's about it.
It's definitely the kind of book that policy makers should have read before we got involved there because it shows how certain aspects of Iraqi political culture were deeply ingrained and most likely could not be changed in a short time span. He describes the essential traits of Iraqi politics and shows them fueling politics and restraining change. Iraq's political history is a whirlwind of coups and rebellions, but Tripp shows that the essential elements have remained strong throughout these rapid shifts in government. These elements include authoritarianism, strong limits on popular participation, patrimonialism, sectarianism, tribalism, violence, the failure to subjugate the military to civilian control, the lack of the concept of a loyal opposition, and, most importantly, the view of the state as a vehicle to seize for the benefit of oneself and one's power base and the enfeeblement of one's foes.
This last point has probably been the biggest constraint on change and reform in Iraqi politics. When you seize power in Iraq, you have to reward the shaky, self-interested coalition that got you there. Doing so requires funneling state largesse their way and weakening their enemies. If you try to reach out and help the people via reform or liberalization, you'll probably just alienate the elites whose support you need to stay in power (and keep your head). Moreover, the security services over and over again in this book exercised a de facto veto power over domestic reform, putting another constraint on reform. Thus in Iraqi politics we and repeatedly see the gravitational pull of these traditions and norms of power. There's a strong tendency to rely on and support as narrow a power base as possible (the political science concept of a selectorate is useful here): sect, tribe, clan, family. Saddam Hussein cracked the norm of Iraqi politics (and stayed in power for 25 years) by making the security services equivalent to his tribe and family and by being even more ruthless than any of his predecessors. Some people might call this an "essentialist" narrative or whatever; I think Tripp is just showing the remarkable staying power of these aspects of Iraqi politics. The evidence is there.
Another point this book hammers home is that the Sunni-Shia divide in Iraqi politics is pretty old. Even under the Ottoman Empire, a Sunni minority had controlled these 3 vilayets. The British empowered the Sunni Hashemites, and most of the Republicans and Baathist leaders were Sunni as well. These tensions may have become exacerbated in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, but they had definitely existed in Iraqi politics since the start of the century. This book is full of revolts and protests that pitted the sects against each other. One could say that our invasion kicked off a revolution in Iraqi politics by enabling the Shia to become the dominant party. In keeping with Iraqi political culture, Shia leaders have used the state largely to solidify their power base and get revenge on their opponents. This core aspect of Iraqi politics, deriving from the tribal and sectarian nature of a state without a nation, remains alive and well today, largely unchanged by the well-meaning but misguided and hubristic American invasion.
Anyone who read this book before, I don't know, invading the country would have had a much clearer view of how thoroughly non-democratic the political culture of Iraq was and how unlikely this was to change, especially via outside intervention. A note for American presidents: maybe it would be a good idea to read one book about a society you are about to invade next. I recommend this book for Presidents and presidential contenders, especially Republican ones, and people with a lot of patience for stiff writing who nevertheless want a deeper sense of Iraqi history.
It's definitely the kind of book that policy makers should have read before we got involved there because it shows how certain aspects of Iraqi political culture were deeply ingrained and most likely could not be changed in a short time span. He describes the essential traits of Iraqi politics and shows them fueling politics and restraining change. Iraq's political history is a whirlwind of coups and rebellions, but Tripp shows that the essential elements have remained strong throughout these rapid shifts in government. These elements include authoritarianism, strong limits on popular participation, patrimonialism, sectarianism, tribalism, violence, the failure to subjugate the military to civilian control, the lack of the concept of a loyal opposition, and, most importantly, the view of the state as a vehicle to seize for the benefit of oneself and one's power base and the enfeeblement of one's foes.
This last point has probably been the biggest constraint on change and reform in Iraqi politics. When you seize power in Iraq, you have to reward the shaky, self-interested coalition that got you there. Doing so requires funneling state largesse their way and weakening their enemies. If you try to reach out and help the people via reform or liberalization, you'll probably just alienate the elites whose support you need to stay in power (and keep your head). Moreover, the security services over and over again in this book exercised a de facto veto power over domestic reform, putting another constraint on reform. Thus in Iraqi politics we and repeatedly see the gravitational pull of these traditions and norms of power. There's a strong tendency to rely on and support as narrow a power base as possible (the political science concept of a selectorate is useful here): sect, tribe, clan, family. Saddam Hussein cracked the norm of Iraqi politics (and stayed in power for 25 years) by making the security services equivalent to his tribe and family and by being even more ruthless than any of his predecessors. Some people might call this an "essentialist" narrative or whatever; I think Tripp is just showing the remarkable staying power of these aspects of Iraqi politics. The evidence is there.
Another point this book hammers home is that the Sunni-Shia divide in Iraqi politics is pretty old. Even under the Ottoman Empire, a Sunni minority had controlled these 3 vilayets. The British empowered the Sunni Hashemites, and most of the Republicans and Baathist leaders were Sunni as well. These tensions may have become exacerbated in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, but they had definitely existed in Iraqi politics since the start of the century. This book is full of revolts and protests that pitted the sects against each other. One could say that our invasion kicked off a revolution in Iraqi politics by enabling the Shia to become the dominant party. In keeping with Iraqi political culture, Shia leaders have used the state largely to solidify their power base and get revenge on their opponents. This core aspect of Iraqi politics, deriving from the tribal and sectarian nature of a state without a nation, remains alive and well today, largely unchanged by the well-meaning but misguided and hubristic American invasion.
Anyone who read this book before, I don't know, invading the country would have had a much clearer view of how thoroughly non-democratic the political culture of Iraq was and how unlikely this was to change, especially via outside intervention. A note for American presidents: maybe it would be a good idea to read one book about a society you are about to invade next. I recommend this book for Presidents and presidential contenders, especially Republican ones, and people with a lot of patience for stiff writing who nevertheless want a deeper sense of Iraqi history.
May 4, 2013
One of the most difficult aspects of writing history books must be deciding how much detail to include. If the author doesn't go into enough depth, readers can be deprived of substantive information. If the author includes too much, the reading can become burdensome. Charles Tripp's A History of Iraq falls more into the latter camp. While it provides many important details, such as the names and motivations of many Iraqi leaders, the tenets of the Baathist Party, and UN resolutions aimed at curbing human rights abuses and ending suspected weapons programs, it tends to get bogged down in excessive amounts of specifics. Every tribe and faction (and there are legions of them), no matter how briefly they were a part of Iraqi politics, get a place in this book.
Aside from the fact that this is extremely hard to follow in many instances, there are two other problems I had with it. The first is that for all the details described, there are still many terms, issues, and processes left unexplained. For example, after describing the first few Iraqi kings beginning in the 1920s, the author turns his focus to regents, presidents, prime ministers, and other high ranking officials. It was never clear to me what the actual role of these positions was, as if the author assumed readers would already know these things.
The second problem was that the entire focus was on the elites in the government. There were a few mentions of regular citizens here and there, but even these were typically just to remind readers that the lower classes were continually neglected and living in poor conditions throughout the last few hundred years. No real information is provided as to their daily lives.
As for the scope of the book, it spends a little time discussing the three provinces—Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra—when they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire beginning in the early eighteenth century. It moves on to the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, which forced the sultan to reinstate the Ottoman Constitution; spends quite a bit of time with the British occupation, which began in 1914 and lasted unofficially for decades afterwards; and goes up through Saddam Hussein's reign, which began in the 1970s (and was still going on when the book was published).
It also discusses the central recurring themes of Iraq: the division many Shia felt between allegiance to their Arab country and their Persian religious leaders, the many feuds over oil revenue, the system of patrimony that kept ruling families in power, the often violently coercive tactics used, and, of course, "the long-unanswered question of the identity of Iraq, as a potential nation-state or as an administrative part of a larger Arab nation."
Aside from the fact that this is extremely hard to follow in many instances, there are two other problems I had with it. The first is that for all the details described, there are still many terms, issues, and processes left unexplained. For example, after describing the first few Iraqi kings beginning in the 1920s, the author turns his focus to regents, presidents, prime ministers, and other high ranking officials. It was never clear to me what the actual role of these positions was, as if the author assumed readers would already know these things.
The second problem was that the entire focus was on the elites in the government. There were a few mentions of regular citizens here and there, but even these were typically just to remind readers that the lower classes were continually neglected and living in poor conditions throughout the last few hundred years. No real information is provided as to their daily lives.
As for the scope of the book, it spends a little time discussing the three provinces—Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra—when they were ruled by the Ottoman Empire beginning in the early eighteenth century. It moves on to the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, which forced the sultan to reinstate the Ottoman Constitution; spends quite a bit of time with the British occupation, which began in 1914 and lasted unofficially for decades afterwards; and goes up through Saddam Hussein's reign, which began in the 1970s (and was still going on when the book was published).
It also discusses the central recurring themes of Iraq: the division many Shia felt between allegiance to their Arab country and their Persian religious leaders, the many feuds over oil revenue, the system of patrimony that kept ruling families in power, the often violently coercive tactics used, and, of course, "the long-unanswered question of the identity of Iraq, as a potential nation-state or as an administrative part of a larger Arab nation."
January 30, 2014
I took a year long break from this book to read about/research other things. I wish I hadn't. This is a remarkable overview of the twentieth century in Iraq, and necessary reading for anyone with a silver of curiosity about the Middle East or the roots, implementation and legacy of the US invasion.
There is so much I didn't know, and of course it's challenging toward the end to read about the relentless violence, destruction and failure--by all parties. But what can you do? Confront your ignorance and extend your compassion to the people who struggle to survive. I would be delighted to lend anyone this book.
There is so much I didn't know, and of course it's challenging toward the end to read about the relentless violence, destruction and failure--by all parties. But what can you do? Confront your ignorance and extend your compassion to the people who struggle to survive. I would be delighted to lend anyone this book.
Read
August 28, 2019We reviewed a different book from normal this time: a history book about Iraq. In the review we'll explain why we think everyone should read this book anyway.
(...)
Reading a history book is like reading a story. In this case, a very detailed story. Charles Tripp, who is a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London), is thorough in his recording of the many different factions and politicians who played a role in Iraq over the past two hundred years. His writing style is matter-of-fact, which makes it a little hard to stay focused throughout. On the other hand, it shows the complexity of his subject matter without polluting his phenomenal knowledge with flowery prose. Overall, I prefer this dense, informative style to the (American) trend of popularising with funny asides and explanations of words you could easily look up.
(...)
There is no shame in forgetting specifics when reading a book so full of them. Your overall understanding of the subject will improve regardless. The more you read, the more you can place new information, like newspaper articles, in a broader context. Terms like the Young Turk Revolution or the Iran-Iraq War will start to carry meaning and implications in your head. And most importantly, if you remember nothing else, you’ll be aware of the fact that things don’t just happen. Countries you have never been to have centuries of history with millions of people, all carrying their own sorrows and happiness. It might sound like common sense, but I think we could be more conscious of this, especially in the West.
(...)
I read somewhere that A History of Iraq is now suggested reading for people who go to work at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Maybe we shouldn’t count upon them to inform themselves, but read this book (or others about the region) ourselves to able to critically watch and judge the foreign policies of our governments.
This is only part of the review, read the full review at: Bookworms United
(...)
Reading a history book is like reading a story. In this case, a very detailed story. Charles Tripp, who is a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (University of London), is thorough in his recording of the many different factions and politicians who played a role in Iraq over the past two hundred years. His writing style is matter-of-fact, which makes it a little hard to stay focused throughout. On the other hand, it shows the complexity of his subject matter without polluting his phenomenal knowledge with flowery prose. Overall, I prefer this dense, informative style to the (American) trend of popularising with funny asides and explanations of words you could easily look up.
(...)
There is no shame in forgetting specifics when reading a book so full of them. Your overall understanding of the subject will improve regardless. The more you read, the more you can place new information, like newspaper articles, in a broader context. Terms like the Young Turk Revolution or the Iran-Iraq War will start to carry meaning and implications in your head. And most importantly, if you remember nothing else, you’ll be aware of the fact that things don’t just happen. Countries you have never been to have centuries of history with millions of people, all carrying their own sorrows and happiness. It might sound like common sense, but I think we could be more conscious of this, especially in the West.
(...)
I read somewhere that A History of Iraq is now suggested reading for people who go to work at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Maybe we shouldn’t count upon them to inform themselves, but read this book (or others about the region) ourselves to able to critically watch and judge the foreign policies of our governments.
This is only part of the review, read the full review at: Bookworms United
April 22, 2021
I loved this text. I did find his language to be dense (and this is coming from someone that is not shy of dense writing). Just so many names, so many dates. As someone newer to the topic, it was as another reviewer said, 'mind-numbing'. I blame the editors. Tripp frames the history he lays out as being a product of three interlinked factors: patrimonialism, political economy of oil revenues, and violence. I don't have any critiques of this. I do wonder how 'exceptional' these factors are. For example, I can't think of a single nation-state that doesn't have at its founding and creation factors of patrimonialism, political economy and violence.
I don't have the knowledge to critique his rendering; I found his arguments to be persuasive, just poorly edited. What would've helped would be a summarizing section at the end of each chapter. At this point though, I would consider assigning it for understanding twentieth-century Iraqi history, until I find a better-edited history.
I don't have the knowledge to critique his rendering; I found his arguments to be persuasive, just poorly edited. What would've helped would be a summarizing section at the end of each chapter. At this point though, I would consider assigning it for understanding twentieth-century Iraqi history, until I find a better-edited history.
July 16, 2023
Informative.
To be frank, it’s a dull read. The first few chapters were a bit of a slog. But the modern day history of Iraq was very interesting. It’s very informative for sure and explains well the backdrop of today’s situation. I just wished more focus was on the day-to-day life of the people and not so much on the politics only. This is my first book on Iraq’s history but I hope it won’t be my last.
Overall, not necessarily an enjoyable read but you’ll definitely learn something.
To be frank, it’s a dull read. The first few chapters were a bit of a slog. But the modern day history of Iraq was very interesting. It’s very informative for sure and explains well the backdrop of today’s situation. I just wished more focus was on the day-to-day life of the people and not so much on the politics only. This is my first book on Iraq’s history but I hope it won’t be my last.
Overall, not necessarily an enjoyable read but you’ll definitely learn something.
February 13, 2025
Much of this book can be described with the conclusion from Why Nations Fail, which is, “institutions perpetuate themselves”. The author does an excellent job of detailing all the politics of the early and modern Iraqi state, along with all the contextual knowledge required to understand this, including secretarian and local international politics. Author describes how successive rulers have gone on to construct their own circles of power and privilege in order to cement their own rule, over and over again, regardless of any lip service towards democracy or liberalism.
January 28, 2013
Absolutely phenomenal and comprehensive view of Iraq's history. Necessary must-read for anyone who wishes to understand present-day Iraq.
August 21, 2021
Having been an (admittedly young) adult during the (latter) Bush years, it reflects poorly on me that I am only now learning a bit about Iraq. Tripp's book was a solid introduction to this neophyte.
The most striking theme here is the surprising consistency during twentieth century Iraqi history. Whether Turks, Brits, native strong men, or Americans were running the show the overall flow of things reads very similar. Factionalism and pragmatic self interest drive events more than the religious or ethnic differences that are used to justify various activities. This simultaneously makes things easier and tougher for an outsider to understand.
An early example of this is given in the final pages of Chapter 1 (titled "The Ottoman provinces of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul"). Early references to "Iraq" were as much influenced by regional leaders seeking to extend their own power than by any factual cohesion between the geographic units it encompassed. Another comment along these lines occurs at the end of Chapter 3 (titled "The Hashemite monarchy 1932-41") where Tripp writes "These features made any construction of an Iraqi identity ambiguous, since it was obvious that any such identity would be determined largely by individuals who had an overdeveloped sense of Iraq as an apparatus of power and an underdeveloped sense of Iraq as a community." Two late examples of these themes occurs in Chapter 7 ("The American occupation and the parliamentary republic") when Tripp draws explicit parallels between the role of the United States in the early 2000s and the role of Great Britain in the 1920s and again later when describing American favoritism toward western firms.
The description (in Chapter 4, titled "The Hashemite monarchy 1941-58") of Nuri al-Sa'id's view of the interplay between Shi'a/Sunni differences and foreign relations is fascinating. In short, the dominance of the Sunni minority was a vestige of Turkish rule, and the Shi'a majority saw any talk of pan-Arabism as an attempt to maintain control via relationships with communities outside Iraq.
The throwaway line in Chapter 5 (titled "The republic 1958-68") that "like many autocrats, Qasim feared any institutional solidity that might eventually call him to account" is worth consideration. Lest one take the lesson too far, consider the "favorite quote" at the end of the review.
Chapter 6 (titled "The Ba'th and the rule of Saddam Husain 1968-2003") opens with a forceful argument that Husain's rule had been presaged by much in previous Iraqi history, but it was not remotely inevitable.
The same chapter, in a section titled "Resistance Amongst the Kurds and the Shi'a", describes how important it was for governing bodies (here, explicitly Husain) to offer alternative identities to the Shi'a populace (for example, familial, rural, national or even into more fine-grained religious differences) so that they did not become a monolithic bloc; this went double whenever there was a conflict with the Shi'a Iran. Later, I was very surprised when the Kurds began fighting each other as soon as they had some breathing space (see the section "Kurdish Autonomy and Kurdish Politics"); clearly, I had not yet internalized the broader themes of Iraqi history.
my favorite quote: "At the time, the British government was preoccupied with the Peace Conference at Versailles and, in the absence of a decision on the future of Iraq, the civil administration continued to entrench itself."
The most striking theme here is the surprising consistency during twentieth century Iraqi history. Whether Turks, Brits, native strong men, or Americans were running the show the overall flow of things reads very similar. Factionalism and pragmatic self interest drive events more than the religious or ethnic differences that are used to justify various activities. This simultaneously makes things easier and tougher for an outsider to understand.
An early example of this is given in the final pages of Chapter 1 (titled "The Ottoman provinces of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul"). Early references to "Iraq" were as much influenced by regional leaders seeking to extend their own power than by any factual cohesion between the geographic units it encompassed. Another comment along these lines occurs at the end of Chapter 3 (titled "The Hashemite monarchy 1932-41") where Tripp writes "These features made any construction of an Iraqi identity ambiguous, since it was obvious that any such identity would be determined largely by individuals who had an overdeveloped sense of Iraq as an apparatus of power and an underdeveloped sense of Iraq as a community." Two late examples of these themes occurs in Chapter 7 ("The American occupation and the parliamentary republic") when Tripp draws explicit parallels between the role of the United States in the early 2000s and the role of Great Britain in the 1920s and again later when describing American favoritism toward western firms.
The description (in Chapter 4, titled "The Hashemite monarchy 1941-58") of Nuri al-Sa'id's view of the interplay between Shi'a/Sunni differences and foreign relations is fascinating. In short, the dominance of the Sunni minority was a vestige of Turkish rule, and the Shi'a majority saw any talk of pan-Arabism as an attempt to maintain control via relationships with communities outside Iraq.
The throwaway line in Chapter 5 (titled "The republic 1958-68") that "like many autocrats, Qasim feared any institutional solidity that might eventually call him to account" is worth consideration. Lest one take the lesson too far, consider the "favorite quote" at the end of the review.
Chapter 6 (titled "The Ba'th and the rule of Saddam Husain 1968-2003") opens with a forceful argument that Husain's rule had been presaged by much in previous Iraqi history, but it was not remotely inevitable.
The same chapter, in a section titled "Resistance Amongst the Kurds and the Shi'a", describes how important it was for governing bodies (here, explicitly Husain) to offer alternative identities to the Shi'a populace (for example, familial, rural, national or even into more fine-grained religious differences) so that they did not become a monolithic bloc; this went double whenever there was a conflict with the Shi'a Iran. Later, I was very surprised when the Kurds began fighting each other as soon as they had some breathing space (see the section "Kurdish Autonomy and Kurdish Politics"); clearly, I had not yet internalized the broader themes of Iraqi history.
my favorite quote: "At the time, the British government was preoccupied with the Peace Conference at Versailles and, in the absence of a decision on the future of Iraq, the civil administration continued to entrench itself."
August 26, 2022
The book seeks to give an overview of Iraq from its emergence to the present (at time of writing) - while regularly intervowing it with a focus on the self-creation of narratives and how the state increasingly 'integrates' the groups within the Iraqi state, in that the state is now the centre of politics for all groups.
The book is very very boringly written and often feels very surface-level, however it gives an OK overview of the history. Still not really enlightening beyond the basics of each period, with often an in my opinion wrong focus on psychological factors especially with Saddam Hussain.
The book is very very boringly written and often feels very surface-level, however it gives an OK overview of the history. Still not really enlightening beyond the basics of each period, with often an in my opinion wrong focus on psychological factors especially with Saddam Hussain.
July 30, 2023
Excellent book, this book gave me a much wider understanding of how the last 150 years have shaped Iraq. It was very specific without making it boring, for example Bakr al Sidqi who became a danger in the 1930s or how abdel Bazzaz tried to reform Iraq in the 1960s to a democratic nation.
August 4, 2024
A terrific treatment for insomnia that will lose you to sleep through the dizzying array of personas that have marked Iraqi history since the Ottomans. Look elsewhere for a history extending beyond key individuals to a people.
January 9, 2026
Could be a worthwhile history if not for the political statements.
September 24, 2013
Tripp's book is well-researched, detailed, and powerfully argues that modern Iraq can only be understood in terms of the patron-client relations, state sponsored organized violence, and religious, tribal, and ethnic tensions which have played powerful roles in Iraq's history. Tripp avoids hasty generalizations, but this causes him to discuss the material in levels of detail which sometimes become "too detailed." On the other hand, Tripp has sought to avoid burying the story in so many details that it becomes lost.
When Tripp discusses the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, an apparent contradition emerges, which would probably warrant reexamination. He strongly suggests that Iraq was engaged in the develpoment of such weapons, but a chapter later (when dealing with the U.S. invasion), he distances himself from the claim. This begs for clarification within subsequent editions.
As an outsider to the heated political discussions within the United States at the time, Tripp's description of the United States' involvement in governing Iraq is a powerful illustration of how the get things wrong. By removing the existing bureaucracy from participation, the United States not only substantially increased Iraqi unemployment, it effectively crippled the government by disqualifying the very civil servants it needed in order to ensure a productive transition. Had the United States' civil and military authorities which were planning a transitional government taken the time to familiarize themselves with Iraqi history and Iraqi power structures, which were in place before Saddam, perhaps that nation's transitional period would have been less painful.
Students of Middle Eastern history, World History teachers, and generalists can all benefit from this book. But each will read the book with varying attention to the ample details contained within it.
When Tripp discusses the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, an apparent contradition emerges, which would probably warrant reexamination. He strongly suggests that Iraq was engaged in the develpoment of such weapons, but a chapter later (when dealing with the U.S. invasion), he distances himself from the claim. This begs for clarification within subsequent editions.
As an outsider to the heated political discussions within the United States at the time, Tripp's description of the United States' involvement in governing Iraq is a powerful illustration of how the get things wrong. By removing the existing bureaucracy from participation, the United States not only substantially increased Iraqi unemployment, it effectively crippled the government by disqualifying the very civil servants it needed in order to ensure a productive transition. Had the United States' civil and military authorities which were planning a transitional government taken the time to familiarize themselves with Iraqi history and Iraqi power structures, which were in place before Saddam, perhaps that nation's transitional period would have been less painful.
Students of Middle Eastern history, World History teachers, and generalists can all benefit from this book. But each will read the book with varying attention to the ample details contained within it.
February 19, 2010
There are a number of works that address the history of Iraq as this ought to have informed American policy there after 9-11: Toby Dodge's Inventing Iraq and Liam Anderson's and Gareth Stansfield's The Future of Iraq and Christopher Catherwood's Churchill's Folly come to mind. This is another in this excellent set of works.
Tripp traces Iraqi history--and its implications--from its status as three provinces in the Ottoman Empire (Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul), the British Mandate (covered so well by Catherwood's book), the early and later Hashemite Monarchy, the very brief "republic" (which term needs to be placed in italics) from 1958-1968, and the Ba'th rule (including Saddam Husain's dictatorship).
The details in this historical analysis provide extremely useful context for understanding the country called Iraq; it also helps inform us as to the challenges of creating a unified country that can produce a sense of "nationhood."
All in all, a good volume for those who want to understand background on Iraq. . . .
Tripp traces Iraqi history--and its implications--from its status as three provinces in the Ottoman Empire (Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul), the British Mandate (covered so well by Catherwood's book), the early and later Hashemite Monarchy, the very brief "republic" (which term needs to be placed in italics) from 1958-1968, and the Ba'th rule (including Saddam Husain's dictatorship).
The details in this historical analysis provide extremely useful context for understanding the country called Iraq; it also helps inform us as to the challenges of creating a unified country that can produce a sense of "nationhood."
All in all, a good volume for those who want to understand background on Iraq. . . .
May 4, 2009
Read this book for school, and enjoyed it. Very good summary on the history of Iraq and the Iraqi people.
December 8, 2011
Suggested reading for Iraq familiarization for working at the U.S. Embassy. Interesting, but I quickly realized it had nothing to do with my job in Baghdad so didn't finish it. Too bad.
March 31, 2013
Very useful and informative read. I wont lie and say it was a fun read but you will learn a lot about what makes the Iraqi nation tick.
March 24, 2016
3.5 stars - is exactly what it says it is. Accessible and focused on the big picture.
Read
February 6, 2015956.704 T836h 2007
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews