Reflection on Book “Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East”
The Middle East is a mysterious and daunting place.
Its mystery lies in Semitic religious culture and the world's earliest recorded Sumerian civilization.
The Semitic religious system originated in Jerusalem (Palestine area), from which the three most representative and influential religions—Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—emerged.
On the other hand, the early Sumerian civilization was located in the Mesopotamian region, in the southeastern part of present-day Iraq, downstream of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Researchers have discovered historical relics proving the existence of the Sumerian civilization dating back to 3500 BC, and Sumerian city-states were discovered around 3000 BC, nearly 1400 years earlier than China's Shang Dynasty, which began around 1600 BC.
The reasons why the Middle East is "daunting" are varied. During the Third Crusade in the Middle Ages, the Arab Empire led by Saladin was formidable. During the period when Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages and China was experiencing the Five Barbarians' Rebellion, the Middle East showed signs of significant advancements in science, technology, culture, and military strength.
The most familiar sources of fear in recent times stem from a series of terrorist attacks in the early 21st century. People’s pain can never fade away from the horrific 9/11 attacks orchestrated by Osama bin Laden’s Taliban extremist group to ISIS forming the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and carrying out terrorist attacks in Europe.
Why do extremist groups commit such inhumane terrorist attacks? Why do chaotic situations in the Middle East frequently appear on television and in the news? Why does Europe always involve itself in Middle Eastern affairs? Why does peace in the Middle East seem so elusive?
With references to books such as "Jerusalem: The Biography," "Lawrence of Arabia," and "Napoleon," and interviews with Ian Roxborough, a renowned Pentagon defense affairs observer and researcher on political violence and warfare, and Joshua Teplitsky, a professor specializing in modern Jewish studies at SUNY Stony Brook (formerly Harvard), we will unveil the mysteries of the Middle East.
To truly understand the love-hate relationship in Middle Eastern politics, the geographic location and distribution of countries play a crucial role. Once readers are familiar with the specific national divisions, the subsequent stories can unfold more smoothly.
In 1453, the Ottoman Turkish Empire conquered Constantinople, the political and religious center of the Orthodox Christians. The fall of the Byzantine Empire also marked the beginning of the successful integration of Western and Eastern Islamic cultures by the Ottoman sultans.
Leading most Sunni Muslims in campaigns against the Western world, the Ottoman Empire, from the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century to the signing of the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, saw its territory reach the peak of its historical expanse by the end of the 17th century.
The vast empire spanned across three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa—with Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) as its core, expanding outward. The expansion of the Islamic Empire also spurred the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration in the Western world. The Ottoman Empire tightly controlled the key trade routes of the Suez Canal and the Silk Road, leading to high taxes and ideological conflicts that made the Christian West eager to find alternative routes for trade with Asia.
The Industrial Revolution arrived, the era of colonialism reached its peak, and the nationalism and statehood brought by the French Revolution gradually forced the Ottoman Empire to make concessions.
The core regions of the Ottoman Empire included the present-day territory of Turkey, Greater Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, and the crucial transportation route from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean near the Suez Canal.
Accompanied by the late 19th-century partitioning of the world by European powers, the Ottoman Empire, often referred to as the "sick man of Europe," had a profound influence.
In the late 19th century, the British forcibly dismembered Egypt from the Ottoman Empire and took actual control of the Suez Canal, allowing for the quick and convenient transport of silk, ceramics, tea, and other goods from Asia to the core of the empire—mainland England.
Russia’s century-long war with the Ottoman Empire also affected the European political landscape. After the fall of Constantinople, Russia inherited the mantle of the Holy Roman Empire and Eastern Orthodoxy, continuously striving for redemption amidst suffering. Of course, their desire for revenge against the Ottoman Empire never ceased. The century-long conflict delayed Ottoman expansion into Western Europe, providing Western Europe with a respite to seek new development opportunities. In the 1870s, Tsarist Russia defeated Ottoman forces in the Balkans, securing independence for present-day Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro. The Ottoman Empire’s activity in Europe gradually contracted to the vicinity of Istanbul.
As the Ottoman Empire was gradually eaten away by Western imperial powers, the Caliphate, in a state of desperate struggle, was enticed by a network of German spies throughout Ottoman territories. The Young Turks and conservatives were encouraged to join World War I, sparking a bloody four-year conflict. This bait was the promise of restoring the Ottoman Empire’s glory, starting with reclaiming control over the Middle East’s most crucial economic, military, and political corridor—the Suez Canal—and inciting the Egyptian people to return to the embrace of the Islamic Empire.
European interest in the Suez Canal and the Strait of Gibraltar symbolized the imperial colonial partition frenzy. The struggle for the Suez Canal was closely tied to the region of Egypt.
In 1798, Napoleon launched a war against the Ottoman Empire to disrupt the British Empire’s trade routes. After easily subduing the Ottoman Sultan’s cavalry with cannons and muskets, Napoleon found that the conquest of Egypt was far from smooth. The deep distrust of the Muslim population towards the distant French and Napoleon's brutal suppression of Egyptian uprisings led to deep-seated hatred towards the “Christian Crusaders” from afar.
The Ottoman Empire then allied with Britain to join the anti-French coalition. Seeing France’s continuous defeats on the European battlefield and the precarious control over Egypt, Napoleon returned to France, seizing the opportunity to stage the Coup of 18 Brumaire and ultimately becoming the supreme ruler of France.
In Egypt, the Albanian-born Ottoman Sultan Muhammad Ali quickly gained power during the power vacuum. Under the inherited French system, he began political and economic reforms. After Napoleon’s defeat, many French soldiers of fortune flooded into Egypt, training many military talents and reformists.
In the subsequent years, the semi-independent Egypt:
In 1811, at the invitation of the Ottoman Sultan, suppressed the Wahhabi uprising on the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1820, annexed the southern neighbor Sudan, turning it into an Egyptian colony.
In 1821, participated in suppressing the Greek nationalist movement, widely known due to Byron’s involvement.
In 1832, Egyptian forces even penetrated Ottoman territory, reaching as far as Kütahya, just 124 miles from the Ottoman capital.
Despite Egypt’s reforms fostering a strong and determined spirit of Arab nationalism and superior military power compared to the Ottomans, Egypt was incorporated into the British colonial empire in 1882.
Watching their significant financial source slip away, the Ottoman Empire was filled with resentment. At the onset of World War I, German spies and diplomats manipulated the situation, compelling the Ottoman Sultans to join the Central Powers (Germany-Austria-Hungary-Ottoman) against the Allied Powers (Britain-France-Russia).
Their first target was to incite the Egyptian people’s anti-colonial struggle and “liberate” Egypt from the British Empire.
The Kingdom of Hejaz and Greater Syria
As the most influential leader in the region, Hussein became a target for various powers' overtures once the Ottoman Empire joined the war. The Ottomans and the German Empire sought to entice Hussein into this unprecedented global conflict under the banner of a Muslim jihad (Germany had never enslaved the Muslim world, making this approach seem logical). Meanwhile, the British promised Hussein the fulfillment of his vision for the Middle East in the 1915 McMahon-Hussein Correspondence.
The Central Powers clearly saw the Ottoman Empire’s hope to reorganize its former glory through a Muslim jihad and thus began courting Muslim tribes. On the other hand, the Allies recognized the Ottoman Empire as a multilingual, multi-ethnic state, where the complexity of its composition meant that any decision by the Sultans in Istanbul to favor one faction would inevitably displease others. Thus, a strategy of internal division and fomenting ethnic conflicts began to unfold within the Ottoman Empire through the Allies' spy networks.
Hussein ultimately decided to lean towards the British, but a dramatic turn of events occurred. After King Hussein declared independence and waged war against the Ottoman Empire, the British and French secretly signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. This agreement betrayed their promises to their Arab allies, seeking instead to maximize British and French imperial interests in the Arab world.
The French were determined to claim the Syrian region, while the British were ambiguous about their intentions for Iraq and Palestine.
Lawrence (the instigator of the Arab Revolt) clearly saw Alexandria as a crucial port for cutting off the Ottoman Empire from other Middle Eastern territories. However, to prevent the Arabs and the British from touching the "big cake" of Syria, the French instigated the Anglo-French forces to launch an amphibious assault on Gallipoli, the most heavily defended Ottoman position.
Under the cover of Turkish machine-gun fire, Gallipoli became a new "meat grinder" in the East, following the one on the Western Front.
After World War I, at the Paris Peace Conference, President Wilson's principles of national self-determination and the "Fourteen Points" were overshadowed by strong pressure from Britain and France and the approaching domestic elections. The promises made to the Arabs turned into worthless scraps of paper.
The French gained control over Syria, the British over Iraq, and Hussein’s Hejaz was forced into political exile in Europe by his old rival Ibn Saud (who controlled the Kingdom of Nejd and led the radical Wahhabi faction) as they approached the holy city of Mecca in 1924.
Fortunately, the old king's son Abdullah established the Kingdom of Jordan, governing it efficiently, while his other legendary son Faisal became the king of Iraq. Thus, the family was not entirely shortchanged by the British.
An old king deceived by British and French promises lost their commitment to establishing a Greater Arab State at the Paris Peace Conference and angered both conservative and radical Arabs by aligning with the Western camp.
The chaotic situation in the Middle East began to take shape.
Imperial Games and Ethnic Conflicts
The Great Britain
The second chapter of "The Great Britain" begins with the statement, "The British Empire stood at the pinnacle of modern civilization. It saw its special duty as enlightening and educating the less fortunate civilizations and races of the world through trade, the Bible, guns, or a combination of all three. This belief permeated all levels of British society."
Before the end of World War I, the British always believed they had the duty to enlighten and educate, acting as the world's police force. Britain's interests in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia were particularly prominent. The British paid special attention to the Ottoman Empire as oil in the Middle East was gradually being discovered, making Ottoman lands highly coveted by European powers.
La France
The French were consistent in their demands for the Syrian region. Since the start of the war against the Central Powers, French interests were closely tied with those of the British. The French were willing to do whatever it took to secure the land they desired.
Ottoman Turks Empire
In 1908, a group of young Turkish officers launched reforms under the banner of the Committee of Union and Progress, aiming to modernize the country. They reformed minority rights, religion, and women's civil rights. To consolidate their political position in the Ottoman Empire, they implemented a strategy of three main points: modernization, defense of Islam, and a call for the empire to join Pan-Turkism (Turanism).
However, these contradictory policies intended to appease all factions backfired, giving every minority group a reason to resent them.
German Empire
The "Kaiser" was the new flagship of the Hamburg-America Line. Every evening at dinner, the German officials on board would stand up to toast, celebrating "that day" (Diesem Tag). This was code for eagerly anticipating the upcoming world war, which broke out less than a year later.
When the war began, the German Empire's goal was to drag the Ottoman Empire into the conflict. By promising the Ottomans the chance to regain Egypt and territories lost to Russia in their century-long wars, the Ottoman Sultans willingly walked into an abyss. The first step to their downfall was the attack on the heavily defended British-held Suez Canal.
Germany's focus in World War I was primarily on the Western Front with the Schlieffen Plan and on the Eastern Front against Russia. As mobile warfare transitioned into a prolonged trench stalemate with massive casualties, Germany sought new breakthroughs in places like the Middle East and through unrestricted submarine warfare.
The grand promises made to the Ottoman Sultans were largely empty. Germany's real aim was to tie down substantial British and French forces and resources in the Middle East, giving the German forces on the Western Front an opportunity to strike a decisive blow against the Allies.
The United States
From the outset, the Americans believed they would not get involved in this European-organized mess. Wall Street’s business elites and Broadway’s oil magnates clearly understood that as long as the war continued across Europe and the U.S. remained uninvolved, they could sell goods and weapons to both sides. More importantly for Standard Oil, the vast oil markets in the Ottoman Empire would be dominated by Americans once Britain, France, and Russia were out, and Germany was too preoccupied to manage the eastern front.
However, under Wilson's leadership, the U.S. declared war on Germany in 1917, aiming to bring about world peace. Wilson’s utopian political ideals left him overwhelmed by the task of reshaping the post-war world order. Questions arose: What did national self-determination mean? Who could join the League of Nations? Should Germany and its allies be punished?
As the Versailles Treaty, led by Britain and France, was unveiled, the seeds of World War II were sown.
In the chaotic Middle East, countries constantly fought and schemed for their own goals and interests. The most tragic were the people living under the Ottoman Empire.
Regarding Jews settled in Palestine and those fleeing Russian tyranny, Muslim governance over Jews was much better than in the Western world (except the U.S.). The British harbored deep contempt for Jews, and Russian treatment of Jews was exceedingly brutal. Although Muslims were dissatisfied with these intelligent settlers, they mostly coexisted peacefully.
Another ethnic group was less fortunate. During the war, the Ottoman Empire’s genocide against Armenians shocked the world. Millions were forced to relocate, leaving rotting bodies along the railways, mass graves, and concentration camps. The records at the British Museum left Joseph stunned. Due to the graphic nature of the images, interested friends can google for further research.
Under Ottoman rule, after Hussein declared himself king and launched the Arab Revolt, conflicts between Turks and Arabs escalated from tax and administrative issues to warfare. Each war became a battle for ethnic survival, with no Turkish soldier spared by the Arab forces.
War is brutal and far from the clear-cut good vs. evil depicted by the Western world post-WWII. War's essence lies in pursuing economic, political, or religious goals.
In this game of deceit, there is no chivalry or duty to save lives, as one never knows what the next moment holds.
War Logic
Colonial independence wars represent a form of anti-colonial struggle since the colonial era began.
Living in the 21st century, we understand that war logic is not confined to full-scale wars or large-scale operations. Similar to the Korean War, where Chinese volunteers aimed to push the decaying U.S. imperialists into the sea, while the "UN" forces aimed to push the Chinese back beyond the Yalu River. This typical war model became less common in the late 20th century, giving rise to a new form of warfare.
Independence wars and guerrilla warfare (KBZZ) exemplified this new warfare model.
Here, we focus on the logic of independence wars.
"Rise with the sun, rest with the sunset" was a common lifestyle in the past.
The first "tactic" of independence wars emerged from this. The Philippines’ and Ireland’s independence wars fully exploited the colonizers' weaknesses, manipulating them with an inside-out strategy.
By day, they were law-abiding citizens; by night, they organized armed raids. Day after day, taking off their hats, they blended back into the populace. From the masses, to the masses.
The Second “Tactic” and Lawrence of Arabia
This second “tactic” was invented and perfected by Captain Lawrence, the protagonist of "Lawrence of Arabia." This strategy of attacking from the outside in has been tried and tested by many who wished to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
Lawrence thoroughly analyzed the situation in the Middle East and found that the weakest link of the Ottoman Empire was its control over the Hejaz region. After Hussein believed the British promises, he launched the Arab Revolt, dreaming of establishing a Greater Arab State.
Seeing this breakthrough, Lawrence became the first and only foreign representative to penetrate deep into Arab territory during World War I and gain the trust of Hussein's son, Faisal.
After understanding the Ottoman Empire's management of cities in the desert and barren regions, he led Arab forces to blow up railways in the desert, cutting off the Turks’ material support to major cities.
By fomenting cooperation and conflicts between Arab tribes, he maximized the disruption of Turkish control over the southern Hejaz Railway.
In the communication between tribes, Lawrence successfully turned several tribes against the Ottomans. Although he knew that the British had already betrayed the promise of a Greater Arab State with the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, he still, with a sense of guilt, managed to rally tribal leaders to his cause.
Lawrence’s tactics could be summarized using Chairman Mao's 16-character formula for organizing guerrilla warfare:
“When the enemy advances, we retreat; when the enemy camps, we harass; when the enemy tires, we attack; when the enemy retreats, we pursue.”
Additionally, under the premise of having British and French modern weapons and cultural offensives, more detailed actions were included:
Destroy, sabotage, harass, subvert, and deceive
The success of these methods lay in Lawrence’s deep integration into the Arab ranks. Initially an anthropologist, he later served as a military advisor. His attire, fluent Arabic, dietary habits, and thinking patterns all conformed to Arab norms. This allowed him to understand issues from an Arab perspective, while at the core of the British expeditionary headquarters in Egypt, there was still the belief of saving the inferior races by the superior race (the shadow of the Boer War did not overshadow their arrogance). Early failures in the war forced these British and French officers from noble and middle-class backgrounds to recognize their issues, and Lawrence’s victory in the Battle of Aqaba established his voice and direction in Middle Eastern warfare.
A British man led Arabs to victory against the Turks.
In 1917, Lawrence strategized military strikes against Palestine, and in 1918, he played a leading role in the war to liberate Syria.
Lawrence’s strategy of launching an internal revolt within the complex Ottoman Empire fulfilled British and French goals of dismantling the empire.
Years later, similar tactics of foreign intervention to dismember large countries or interfere in internal affairs were seen in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The color revolution in a certain country against China in 2019 was a direct application of Lawrence’s tactics.
In a nutshell
King Hussein’s dream of a Greater Arab State was shattered by the British and French; losing the Ottoman Empire’s support left him vulnerable to his old rival Ibn Saud, who defeated him decisively; Middle Eastern Muslim radicals and conservatives were at odds; Armenians faced severe discrimination; Turkey, under the banner of Turanism, sought to restore past glories; Western-backed Zionism took root in Palestine, causing ripples throughout the Muslim world; and Iran’s Shia faction eyed the Sunni-controlled Middle East with envy.
These layered complexities gradually reconstructed the era, shaping our current lives.
In 1956, the second Middle Eastern war ended with British defeat over the Suez Canal dispute due to Soviet and American intervention, marking the end of the British colonial era.
The Arab world united to challenge Israel.
The U.S. intervened in Iraq for oil.
The Syrian war saw ISIS radicals and conservatives in fierce conflict, with Turkey and Iran profiting from the chaos.
War broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Sunni alliances imposed sanctions on Shia Iran.
Palestinian armed groups clashed with Israel.
The world remains turbulent and chaotic.
What if the British had kept their promises back then?
Even with a prophet, nothing could have stopped Britain and France from carving up the rich resources of the Middle East after their heavy losses in World War I.
