The author is highly experienced and well informed. The historical perspective is extensive but the book is written in a very readable style. A tremendous help in understanding the conflict and the issues of that part of the world.

This book was recommended to me in preparation for a tour in Iraq. It's an excellent overview of the history of this troubled nation, with due emphasis on the religious and tribal aspects. The latter portion which addresses US intervention makes clear the author's disapproval of US policy and actions.

The purpose of this volume is straightforward (page xi): ". . .I am trying to give as complete a 'portrait' of Iraq as is now possible so that readers can evaluate the often confusing daily events. . . . I believe that knowing about events over-time is crucial to a perception of the present."

This book has several strengths in outlining Iraqi history: (1) it is brief and gives a sense of the sweep of Iraqi history in a way that can be digested well; (2) the history begins much earlier than other books on Iraqi history, going back to ancient times, about 6,000 BC; (3) it provides some context for examining the American occupation of Iraq after its invasion in 2003; (4) it is well written.

The downside is a mirror image: The historical coverage is quite brief and sometimes important events get short shrift. There is one page on the Assyrian empire, providing almost no detail. This is where other books can be more illuminating, because of their greater coverage of shorter slices of time. Books by Catherwood ("Churchill's Folly"), Dodge ("Inventing Iraq") and Tripp ("A History of Iraq") provide much more depth, albeit over more restricted time periods.

The book is organized by historical period. Chapter 1 focuses on ancient Iraq (Akkadians, Assyrians, etc.). Chapter 2 focuses on Islamic Iraq. This is the story of the rise of Islam and the split within that religion between Sunni and Shia (not told as clearly as, for example, in Nasr's "The Shia Revival"). Nonetheless, it provides context. Chapter 3? British Iraq. Here, the story of the British Mandate and its problems in trying to manage Iraq, a nation created by fiat. Catherwood's work is very good in its detailing of this era. And so on, up to Chapter 5--"American Iraq." Here, Polk examines the American invasion and its aftermath. The book concludes with a chapter that explores where we are now and where are things likely to go and what should the United States do.

So, a good brief crisply written volume. What is sacrificed? Depth and detail. But each reader will have to determine the tradeoff between these.

The purpose of this volume is straightforward (page xi): ". . .I am trying to give as complete a 'portrait' of Iraq as is now possible so that readers can evaluate the often confusing daily events. . . . I believe that knowing about events over-time is crucial to a perception of the present."

This book has several strengths in outlining Iraqi history: (1) it is brief and gives a sense of the sweep of Iraqi history in a way that can be digested well; (2) the history begins much earlier than other books on Iraqi history, going back to ancient times, about 6,000 BC; (3) it provides some context for examining the American occupation of Iraq after its invasion in 2003; (4) it is well written.

The downside is a mirror image: The historical coverage is quite brief and sometimes important events get short shrift. There is one page on the Assyrian empire, providing almost no detail. This is where other books can be more illuminating, because of their greater coverage of shorter slices of time. Books by Catherwood ("Churchill's Folly"), Dodge ("Inventing Iraq") and Tripp ("A History of Iraq") provide much more depth, albeit over more restricted time periods.

The book is organized by historical period. Chapter 1 focuses on ancient Iraq (Akkadians, Assyrians, etc.). Chapter 2 focuses on Islamic Iraq. This is the story of the rise of Islam and the split within that religion between Sunni and Shia (not told as clearly as, for example, in Nasr's "The Shia Revival"). Nonetheless, it provides context. Chapter 3? British Iraq. Here, the story of the British Mandate and its problems in trying to manage Iraq, a nation created by fiat. Catherwood's work is very good in its detailing of this era. And so on, up to Chapter 5--"American Iraq." Here, Polk examines the American invasion and its aftermath. The book concludes with a chapter that explores where we are now and where are things likely to go and what should the United States do.

So, a good brief crisply written volume. What is sacrificed? Depth and detail. But each reader will have to determine the tradeoff between these.

This book is a good read for the average person wishing to brush up on the history of Iraq, and to understand why it is the U.S. occupying force has faced such difficulty (we should have learned from the British colonial occupation!). Written by an expert on Middle-Eastern affairs and a scholar of Arabic, it is both a concise history of Iraq from ancient times and a compelling criticism of the current U.S. occupation. Although Polk belittles the post-invasion presence of Al-Qaeda, and comes up short in terms of a comprehensive "solution" to the problem there (who currently doesn't?), this book is a recommended read for the introductory reader, written by a man of distinguished credentials. The primary weakness of the book is a lack of comprehensive footnoting and referencing, which would fully make transparent the author's sources. (Those supportive of the war will look in vain for any supporting reasons for the war in Iraq.)

This book is a must-to-read for all American policy makers who are dealing with Iraq issue. As an Iraqi who lived in the "Revolutionary Iraq" period, as the author names it, I agree with most of what he said. However, I disagree with the idea mentioned in the book that Americans did not know that Iraq will invade Kuwait. Being less arrogant & reading a bit about the history of Iraq will definitely spare the Americans many lives. Till now, it is not too late to do so.

With this title on a 213 page book you can't legitimately expect something on the order of Gibbon's Rise and Fall, but this book is stunningly superficial and a bad polemic.

A good polemic shares the virtue of other scholarly works and avoids first person commentary. This author just can't resist citing himself as a source and refering the reader to his website. A good polemic at least attempts to engage or acknowledge the best of other points of view or weak points in its argument. This is the kind of book that sternly notes the refusal of French and Chinese governments to support the sanctions regime -- without mentioning that the objectivity of both governments' assessment of sanctions was deeply undercut by the fact that they both had sweetheart deals with Saddam to develop Iraq's oil as soon as sanctions were lifted. It casts the US and British as boogeymen without adequately acknowledging Saddam's responsibility for miserable and unstable leadership of a wealthy country with energetic people. I tired of plowing through Polk's opinionated, often self-congratulatory prose for the occasional nugget of useful information.

Finally, I don't agree that this book is respectful of the sweep of Iraqi history. Iraq occupies the Tigris and Euphrates basin, the "cradle of civilization". By giving an ethnic frame to the presentation of ancient wonders like the hanging gardens of Babylon, the culture that produced the Gilgamesh epic, the world's first written writing (a recipe for beer), and the period of the first 4 Islamic caliphs the author can mislead the Western reader into thinking that Iraqi's share his understanding of their past. Based on my own experience of Iraqis and in Islamic countries Iraqis would not recognize or appreciate an ethnic slant on their ancient past and Muslims universally respect the 4 caliphs who immediately followed the Prophet Mohammed. We can't get that from this book and that's basic to respect for the Iraqi past.

If you want a book that recites the arguments against US and British policy from the 1980s onward this book does a good job of presenting them--without offering any sense of a viable alternative that would have worked with Saddam. If you're looking for a book that will overcome the limitations of both the neo-conservative and Arabist worldviews and give a balanced presentation of Iraq's rich history and resources and how its people can go forward to enjoy them in peace, skip this book.

This book provides the reader with valuable information on the history & development of Iraq as well as the region surrounding Iraq.
A required a "read' for all.

A sympathetically written book about a region surprisingly rich in history. Having been familiar with Iraq during a pivotal period in its history, the author also brings his perspective to recent events there.

Overall it was a great overview of Iraqi history. Where the author is able to remove his present day passions from the work, its a great read. I found the discussion of Islamic and British Iraq intriguing. Where it loses objectivity is with 2001 forward. Several critiques of US policy were probably more correct than not, and its probably true that the US govt's reasons for entering Iraq were shortsighted at best, and possibly dubious. The impact of the failure to get people electricity, jobs, and air-conditioning is too lightly addressed. Also the author presents the insurgency in Iraq as being aimed more at the American Military, when in fact the majority of violence appears to be Iraqi on Iraqi. Not much insight on where to go from here. Overall a good read, I would recommend it for someone wanting a brief summary about the history of Iraq.

Overall it was a great overview of Iraqi history. Where the author is able to remove his present day passions from the work, its a great read. I found the discussion of Islamic and British Iraq intriguing. Where it loses objectivity is with 2001 forward. Several critiques of US policy were probably more correct than not, and its probably true that the US govt's reasons for entering Iraq were shortsighted at best, and possibly dubious. The impact of the failure to get people electricity, jobs, and air-conditioning is too lightly addressed. Also the author presents the insurgency in Iraq as being aimed more at the American Military, when in fact the majority of violence appears to be Iraqi on Iraqi. Not much insight on where to go from here. Overall a good read, I would recommend it for someone wanting a brief summary about the history of Iraq.

required reading as background history of Iraq, Oil, Middle East to understand the future we need to understand the past to the best of our abilities

required reading as background history of Iraq, Oil, Middle East to understand the future we need to understand the past to the best of our abilities

I would have expected Mr Polk to be more objective in his final chapters on the Iraq Revolution and especially American Iraq. The first part of this book is very well written and very informative. Obviously, even an old partisan who has nothing to gain anymore from his opinions cannot necessarily break free of party line spinning.

I would have expected Mr Polk to be more objective in his final chapters on the Iraq Revolution and especially American Iraq. The first part of this book is very well written and very informative. Obviously, even an old partisan who has nothing to gain anymore from his opinions cannot necessarily break free of party line spinning.

Mr. Polk's book, until the American invasion in 2003, serves as an excellent primer in Iraqi history. Even though it is very brief, I was able to learn much of the history shaping this soon to be great nation. I could generally gauge his insightfulness through casual conversation with the Iraqi engineers, city officials, and military officers that I work with on a day to day basis. Most were very impressed that a non-Iraqi (Polk) could so easily grasp very subtle yet signifigant concepts such as "Marjiyah" and Kuwait's effect on the Iraqi people's concious.

Mr. Polk goes off the deep end, however, when he starts talking about the American invasion. It seems that the quality of his sources somehow went South. One glaring error was his claim that there were no foriegn fighters in Iraqi in 2003-2004. There is ample evidence in the form of documents, bodies, eye-witness accounts, and so forth to prove otherwise. In Iraq, it is common knowledge. It would be insulting even to argue such. He must have, for whatever reason, lost the pulse of the new Iraq. From page 169 on, I get the feeling William did more research more from watching the BBC or Al Jazeera than anything.

Would i recommend this book? Yes, up until the invasion. But perhaps he is bluffing more than just the American invasion...... I would hardly be the one who could call him out on it.

Mr. Polk's book, until the American invasion in 2003, serves as an excellent primer in Iraqi history. Even though it is very brief, I was able to learn much of the history shaping this soon to be great nation. I could generally gauge his insightfulness through casual conversation with the Iraqi engineers, city officials, and military officers that I work with on a day to day basis. Most were very impressed that a non-Iraqi (Polk) could so easily grasp very subtle yet signifigant concepts such as "Marjiyah" and Kuwait's effect on the Iraqi people's concious.

Mr. Polk goes off the deep end, however, when he starts talking about the American invasion. It seems that the quality of his sources somehow went South. One glaring error was his claim that there were no foriegn fighters in Iraqi in 2003-2004. There is ample evidence in the form of documents, bodies, eye-witness accounts, and so forth to prove otherwise. In Iraq, it is common knowledge. It would be insulting even to argue such. He must have, for whatever reason, lost the pulse of the new Iraq. From page 169 on, I get the feeling William did more research more from watching the BBC or Al Jazeera than anything.

Would i recommend this book? Yes, up until the invasion. But perhaps he is bluffing more than just the American invasion...... I would hardly be the one who could call him out on it.

This is truly a suprising read, a slight book that truly packs a punch in its lucid, fair and quite extensive chronicle of the rich and long history of Iraq. As most may recall Iraq is usually painted as the region where civilization first evolved around Sumner and Babylon. An ancient center this region saw Nebuchanezer, the Assyrians, and the Persians before it saw Alexander. In the early Arab period it began to become Muslim and later on we see the Caliphate shift from Baghdad(a center of learning) to Damascus. The Mongols destroyed Baghdad but a son of that same country led the anti-Crusades.

This brilliant study highlights British rule, which is very helpful, and gives a good understanding the ethnic and religious politics of the country and draws suprising parrallels between the present Iraqi problems and the past, for instance showing that Allawi used Kurds in Najaf just as the British had used Assyrian Christians.

A very important account, there are some things missing, there is no great understanding or mention of the Chaldean Christians or the Turcomen, but every important aspect of the countries history is mentioned, such as the role of the Communist Party, the great Iraqi revolt in the 1920s and King Faisal.

Seth J. Frantzman

Polk's useful analysis of Iraq history brims with insights into what is happening in Iraq today. This book is a "must read" for the informed layperson who wants to better understand this critical theater of American interests. This is also one of the books that civilian and military policy makers should have read before invading Iraq.

Finally, after reading this book, I feel informed. I've been reading lots of bits and pieces (articles) about the history of the Middle East and the Iraq war and often found it to be somewhat overwhelming. Understanding Iraq really did bring it all together for me. I especially appreciated that it was contained in a readable 213 pages. Now when I see or hear a name associated with the region, I can readily identify that place or person's role. I recognize that a region's history and politics can't be fully described in such a short book. But Understanding Iraq inspires one to explore further and the subject doesn't seem so overwhelming anymore. It's an excellent place to start. I highly recommend it to average Americans who want to be informed.

For one who does not know the details of the history of Iraq, this book provides an excellent overview. Dr. Polk does a good job of explaining rather briefly the panorama of the people who evolved into today's Iraq. Everyone should read this book along with others about Iraq history. I look forward to reading the _How to Get Out of Iraq_ co-authored by Dr. Polk.

1. Who edited this book? Numerous spelling errors.
2. Good concise overview of Iraq until the author discusses the gulf War (1990).
3. Author blurs the lines between fact and opinion when discussing Iraq post 1990. I would think that the American liberation of Kuwait would be looked upon more favorably, but I got the opinion that the author was more sympathetic to Saddam.
4. Discussion of American invasion in 2003 is more sensationalistic and opinionated than fact driven.

Bottom Line, this is a pretty good concise history of Iraq until 1990. If you want a extremely leftist "liberal" view of events in Iraq post 1990, this is the book for you. If you are an english grammar freak, the editing in this book will make your head explode.

I saw Dr. Polk on C-SPAN a month or two ago. He was addressing a gathering of concerned and apparently well-heeled citizens in the New York Museum of Art--as I recall. He had the crowd and the moderator in the palm of his hands. I found him to be a compelling speaker who obviously was very versed in the subject matter of Iraq. He seemed to genuinely care about the Iraqi people--and the Amercian people. His speech and this book was about correcting our "present march of folly"--to steal from Barbara Tuchman's fine book title.

This book is a primer on Iraq from Dr. Polk's point of view. It does offer a "broad sweep" of Iraqi history in a mere 200+ pages. It's purpose is obviously as an introductory historical primer for literate, reasonably educated Americans so that they can understand the basic historical circumstances leading up to the present conflict. I think he wrote the book to try to change more American minds and effect a change in our present policy. That change seems to be coming about as I hit these keys. Both the Iraqi public and American public seem to be losing patience with the present intolerable set of affairs in Iraq.

It's quite unfortunate that some of the Amazon reviewers have so much trouble accepting some very basic facts. They, like the occupant of the White House and the rather motley crew that surrounds him seem to live in their own separate reality. We need, as a people, to give up our collective fairy tales about our country, its leaders, and its forever "good intentions."

This is a very approachable book. Highly recommended for those who have little background in the history of Iraq. Another very good book that another reviewer recommended is: "The Future of Iraq" by Liam Anderson and Gareth Stansfield. Their analysis results in the conclusion that Iraq will break into 3 pieces. Hopefully, in some sort of federated pattern rather than as warring nations. I remember Seymour Hirsch saying that the three part outcome was virtually inevitable given the circumstances on the ground in Iraq. He based this on his sources in Iraq. He made this statement in the spring on C-SPAN. Seems quite prescient.

Many of the Amazon reviewers of Polk's book are guilty of being "political", a charge that they attempt to tar Polk with. So when you read the reviews keep in mind that Bush apologists can be found everywhere and people of that sort know only too well that should Polk's reasonable and insightful book become popular their cause will be hurt. Polk's main contribution is that he has synthesised a highly complex story and made it concise and accessible for the average American. For those of us who have worked with US policy abroad, the simple points Polk makes about Iraq are painful, but true. Bush and his Iraq team would fail Economic Development 101 as taught by any university in America. As Polk recounts, there can be no political or economic improvement without good communication (an occupation army and administration with virtually no Arabic language skills is absolutely unthinkable, yet that is the situation we have); in the long-run, top down development absolutely never works (how could Bremer not understand this?); local support is a prerequisite for all successful development (democratic, capitalist development models are unreal ideas to the average Iraqi); and without stable and secure populations and institutions, development plans, capitalist or otherwise, will not be worth the paper they are printed on. Polk focuses on these basic ideas and presents his case on how and why the United States has ended up in a pickle of Bush and Chaney's choosing. So unlike the others to be found here, if you must read a book on Iraq, pick "Understanding Iraq". It is history written from a point of view that strives for simple, telling, damning truth; the one thing that political types of all stripes abhor.

When Professor Polk describes the sweep of history in Iraq, he is at his best, but the book often descends into a political diatribe that is neither appropriate nor grounded in the facts. Much of the political ranting is supposition, marring what would otherwise be an interesting and informative work. The ranting gets especially tedious towards the end. My advice, read the first part and skip the last half.

When Professor Polk describes the sweep of history in Iraq, he is at his best, but the book often descends into a political diatribe that is neither appropriate nor grounded in the facts. Much of the political ranting is supposition, marring what would otherwise be an interesting and informative work.

This book could have been a great one given the author's experience in government and his firsthand knowledge of Iraq. The problem is that he despises George W. Bush so much that you can practically feel the venom dripping off the pages. At one point, the author comes close to justifying Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. There are better books available.

I was very excited about this book before I started to read it. Polk appeared to have flawless credentials...surely someone with so much relevent experience would produce an outstanding book on Iraq. Unfortunately it became clear very early on in this book that my expectations were not to be met.

Let's start witht the obvious. The subtitle of this book begins as "the whole sweep of Iraqi history..." The book is 213 pages and even that can be deceiving...physically, the book is very small and the typesetting appears larger than average. To be sure, no single book could adequately present the whole sweep of Iraqi history, but of all the Iraqi history books I have read or referenced, this book does the poorest job of all in terms of presenting an overview of the country. I would recommend Anderson and Stansfield's book as an example of one of the best books in this area.

The way Polk has the book organized, it would be reasonable to have high hopes. There are six chapters: Ancient Iraq, Islamic Iraq, British Iraq, Revolutionary Iraq, American Iraq, and Whose Iraq? He appears to have the important bases covered, but within these chapters lies a remarkably weak and half-hearted presentation of Iraq's history, at least at the governmental level.

Another somewhat related criticism would be that there are next to no cited sources in the entire book. From an academic standpoint, this is baffling. His experience in the field notwithstanding, it is unacceptable to produce what is to be a serious history book and then provide no sources or bibliography. The key here is to recognize that at its heart, this book is not an attepmt to provide a history of Iraq, but merely an outlet for criticizing the way the U.S. (particularly Bush) has handled Iraq.

Onto that criticism: Polk is one of those authors that rightly and (mostly) accurately points out all of the bad things the U.S. has done when it comes to Iraq. From a moral or humanitarian perspective, of course it's wrong to give support to someone like Hussein. I think most people would agree with that. What baffles me is that someone could so passionately point out all these bad things and then be so opposed to a war that ultimately removed a regime who surived up to that point because of what the U.S. had done. Even though it was not the reason given, the U.S. had accumulated quite a large moral debt to Iraq. In short, we owed it to Iraqis to get rid of Saddam. Further explanations of this type of thinking can be found in Feldman's "What we owe Iraq," and Cushman's "A Matter of Principle."

My last main complaint about this book is that for all the criticizing and lamenting about U.S. intentions and mistakes (and believe me, these are all warranted), Polk offers no real ideas for what to do to help Iraqis build a better future, and more importantly, he never even touches on the topic of what kind of life these people would have endured if Hussein was still in power today. I think it's important and necessary to call the U.S. on its mistakes, but at the end of the day, the U.S. actually helped get rid of a dictator this time. And even though we owe this to a lot of other countries, I can only be glad that humanitarian and security interests were aligned in this case, and that for all the other problems, there is at least a chance for democracy and a better life in Iraq. That chance certainly did not exist under Hussein.

The biggest let down here is that it is important for people to understand Iraq, but this book I believe, is doing more harm than good. If you've done a fair amount of reading on Iraq, this will be clear so that's not the danger here. What would be an absolute tragedy here would be for someone with no prior experience to pick up this book and then think they have a real understanding of Iraq after reading it. These are the types of books that make my job as a professor harder than it should be because I have to spend so much time in order to defuse all numbers of students who read material like this and base their opinions and judgements from it. While not nearly as damaging to the process of education and understanding as Michael Moore or Sean Hannity, it is much more disappointing because Polk has the education and experience needed to produce stellar work. Framed in those terms, this book is largely a failure.

Not only has this professor studied the country of Iraq, he has studied its language and its history. Unlike many authors writing about Iraq, he has lived there. He was also a policy advisor during the Kennedy administration. Given this, he has a better perspective than most who have written about it.

In highlighting linguistics, Polk points out that not understanding the language will inevitably lead to misunderstanding, which will in turn lead to bad decisions. Further, by highlighting the history of the country, he underlines the good times and the bad, and in doing so, he points out what is likely to happen.

The last part of the book discusses the current situation in Iraq and the United States' involvement. Here, the author applies the history and language to show what can be expected. However, part of this also goes into critique.

Regardless on your take of the United States' presence in Iraq, this book is a good primer for understanding Iraq.

I just finished reading this stupefying book; every word of it, from cover to cover. My problem was where to file it among the 20,000 plus books in my collection. I finally found the appropriate place: in the TRASH.

This kind of book has a long pedigree. For 70 years we were repeatedly told by so called "experts" that the peoples of the Soviet Union just loved living under a Communist dictatorship. Besides, they never knew anything better, and never had it so good. Ditto the Poles, Czechs, East Germans, Hungarians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cubans, etc., etc., etc.

Now Mr. Polk assures us that the Iraqis would prefer living under a Saddamite/Baathist tyranny to being given an opportunity to govern themselves (or, in his view, being conquered and oppressed by the forces of American Inperialism). We heard all this before during the Cold War.

Don't these anti American professors ever get tired of peddling the same old drivel? The story always remains the same. Only the names and places are changed; except, that is, for the USA, which always plays the role of the villian.

I sure get tired of reading it! The same old boring story, over and over again.

Polk's work provides some good cultural insights regarding the history and people of Iraq. It is an enjoyable read from an accomplished academic professional who has worked in the country and region for years. Despite this, Polk's tendancy toward political diatribe and his many unsupported claims severely detract from the work's objectivity and usefulness. For example, one of the most disturbingly false claims that he makes is that, "(U.S. military) bases often been placed on top of or continguous to Iraqi archeological sites, and so have endangered or even destroyed priceless cultural treasures..."(p. 207) He makes the charge, yet, as so often throughout the book, offers no supporting evidence. As a more balanced and in-depth "one volume" reference, I would strongly recommend Dr Phoebe Marr's "The History of Modern Iraq", Westview Press, 2004.

Mr. Polk's book is very interesting and brings out some great points. He brings out some very intriguing parallels between British foreign policy in the last century and how that history colors the Iraqi perception of American policy there now. I also enjoyed Mr. Polk's periodic incorporation of Iraqi words and phrases in the book; it didn't necessarily emphasize the point of the chapters but it did help give the reader a better "flavor" of the subject at hand. All that said, I was saddened that the author chose to showcase his political viewpoints in this book. There were a number of times during my reading of the book that I found myself being led to the conclusion that the root of all of Iraq's problems lies in the western world, not in the complex interplay of the various tribes and religious sects in and around modern day Iraq. The book would have had a greater impact on me if the author could have avoided exposing his distain for the west and especially the current American administration. Bottom line: A good read but the author's political opinions detract from the work. If Mr. Polk ever wrote a more in-depth book on the same topic (and left out his anti-western rhetoric) I would be interested in reading it.

It's not the author's views I disagree with, it's his extremely brief and conclusory treatment of his subject matter, which is so relevant to us today, that concerns me. The "whole sweep" of Iraq's history in 213 double spaced quarto pages? Moreover, what was written needs to be proofread better. A real disappointment. Needs to be fleshed out and be less disjointed.

This is the book I had been looking for. Too may histories of this region are a catalog of battles and clashes of religions and ethnic groups which I have never heard of. As a "whole sweep" in one little book, it will not please purists. It avoids the catalog, to give us what we need to know to make sense of Iraq today.

The book gets even more interesting when Polk gives the modern day history. For instance, we learn about the rise of Saddam H. how and why Kuwait was set up.

[...] The book is designed to inform, not to mobilize.

[...]

William R. Polk's Understanding Iraq: The Whole Sweep of Iraqi History from Genghis Khan's Mongols to the Ottoman Turks to the British Mandate to the American Occupation is an attempt to provide the reader with a comprehensive treatment of Iraqi history given the prominence of this country on the contemporary geopolitical landscape. It is his contention that one must obtain a working knowledge of the history of the people, their culture and religion, in order to fully appreciate the current state of affairs. He treats the subject with great care reaching back over the millennia into the very early stages of civilization in the Fertile Crescent. Understanding these deep roots is essential for Polk's thesis.

One aspect of the book that raises concern is the lack of footnotes throughout the text as a whole. It is true that when Polk offers a strong statement often in relation to US policy, there is an asterisk with a source in the footnote. He does not expect the reader to consume his perspective based upon his credentials. He instead offers the original source that has brought him to his conclusion. If this were more prevalent throughout the work it would not only validate the author's credibility but would facilitate further study.

Polk has composed a gripping and reasoned analysis of the history of Iraq. He has covered a large amount of material but has still managed to provide lucid and relevant commentary on what is taking place in the Middle East today. In his conclusion he offers a glimpse of what Iraq may look like in the future as well as what America's role may be.

William R. Polk's _Understanding Iraq_ (2005) makes a valuable contribution to the debate in the U.S. on the war in Iraq and the future steps to be taken. Polk's credentials are impressive, with degrees at Harvard and Cambridge, experience in the U.S. State Department, and direct, first-hand knowledge of Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. The quality of his work matches his credentials.

Throughout much of his book, he provides a broad history of Iraq from ancient times to the present. One of his main premises is that in the scope of history the Fertile Crescent, the Mesopotamian Valley, has been a region defined by internal and external conflict. He argues that repetitive cycles are evident in the broad history of the region (from the dawn of history) to the more recent history of Iraq as a nation-state the past century. He claims, for instance, that the Sumerian "lugals," literally "big man," of roughly 2800 BCE are the ancestors of figures like Saddam Hussein, the self-proclaimed "Hero President." Some of the long historical parallels Polk draws, while they interesting on one level, seem anthropologically universal in the evolution of society (and not specific to Iraq per se). Despite this, Polk's broad analysis is informative and important.

In my opinion, the strongest sections of the book are his discussions of British colonialism, the revolutionary period (after-independence), and the current period of the U.S. led Coalition Authority. Here, historical parallels are manifest. For example, Polk points out that the U.S. provisional constitution in 2004 mandating an interim provisional authority was nearly identical to the British government's mandate for occupation, delivered to the League of Nations in 1922. There are a number of other striking similarities in the recent history.

In these chapters, Polk gives a detailed picture of Sadam Hussein's cruelty, his miscalculations, and the Stalinistic totalitarianism under which Iraqis lived. Polk also acknowleges the social improvements in Iraq before Gulf War I in the health and human services due to an economy strengthened by oil sales. Polk's treatment of the U.S. involvement in Iraqi affairs in the Iran-Iraq War, particularly in arms and sales of chemical agents, and his description of the lead-up to the Gulf War I give a sense of the overall complexity of U.S. - Iraqi relations. He talks candidly about the effects of the trade sanctions on Iraqi civilians in the 1990s. From Polk's perspective, U.S. interests have been, at best, ambiguous and in their worst forms, devastating.

Polk's book ends with a four page analysis of what should be done in the present. He argues that the US should "choose" when it pulls out but also should make known to Iraqi citizens that the American presence is, by definition, temporary. He asserts that the UN should play an active role in the transition and that reconstruction monies should fund Iraqi corporations directly. These views are relevant to the present debate.

Polk's book is one work among many on Iraq, and it should be read in conversation with other accounts, written by Iraqis, civil servants, soldiers, military generals, and scholars of the Middle East. When considered in this context, Polk's work is quite valuable. What is remarkable about the number of books being written about Iraq is their closeness to the actual events unfolding each day. This puts an obvious constraint on authors. At the same time, these works make the newspaper reports clearer and offer a sense of which views are more valid than others.

Does this book have a left tilt? I would say yes, but that doesn't make this book any less credible. I found it very enlightening and able to give many answers to why things are going so wrong over there.

Particularly enlightening is the hypocritical nature of our government, espcially in providing weapons and technology to Iraq to defeat Iran and giving Iraq the raw materials for the poison gas and biological weapons Sadaam unleashed on the Kurds (only to strongly condemn Sadaam later).

Our occupation of Iraq almost exactly mirror's Britain's occupation on Iraq in the early 20th century. But a paragraph on p. 187 sums up what the outcome of this mess will be:

"If remaking the world in America's image is really the Neo-Conservatives' aim and warfare is the means they intend to adopt, they are poor students of history. The results of American military interventions show a different pattern...to name a few of the thirty-five American interventions since the Second World War. What happened? NO UNDEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES TURNED INTO DEMOCRACIES."


How can we expect any different this time?

I must start off by noting that Mr. Polk is an extremely studied man, and an expert on middle eastern affairs. This being said, I must say that I was terribly disappointed in the end product of his knowledge. While he is very keen on the facts he is relentless in his opinionated, and quite often intolerable, liberal worldview. I must also admit my own shame in not picking this up simply by reading the subtital.. "to the American OCCUPATION". Also noted in this book was the authors almost unnoticed disbelief in a theistic being, passing on religion in general as relativistic.

If you already hold, generally speaking, a relatively liberal worldview then I would recommend this to you. If however, you prefer factual history to that of a revisionist opinion briefing then I would suggest strongly to stay clear of this book.

Understanding Iraq gives specific examples of why what seems desirable, even a fundamental right or top priority, to an American may not be seen as such by an Iraqi. In telling the general story of Iraq, this book also points out the complexities, commonalties, deceit, and hypocrisies of ruling bodies, without finger pointing or exempting any. And it is because of this very reason that it remains important for every individual--especially every American citizen that can vote in officials who decide economic and military actions involving Iraq--to critically think, question, discuss, and look beyond the immediate surface and attempt to see through different perspectives. In bringing to light current and historical influences on people in present-day Iraq, Understanding Iraq shows the importance of respecting the diversity and depth of all that surrounds us, and reminds us that the American culture and experience is just one of many, and like any single culture only offers a limited outlook on life and on the priorities and actions of individuals and the groups they form.

This is an excellent book on the history of Iraq, even if it is a bit left wing. His history through the Mongols, the British and others was quite good. This alone makes the book well worth reading.

It's when he gets to the last chapter on where do we go from here that I find his thoughts a little weak. For instance he would like to see a UN multinational peacekeeping force take over security. My own experience doesn't show a lot of faith in these, they were in Bosnia remember.

He says, American firms have been given the inside track on all the major reconstruction contracts, while most Iraqi and firms from other countries have been excluded. Then he says firms from France, Germany, Russia and Canada have been excluded. If it's American money being spent, we should have some say in who gets it. And excluding four countries still leaves a hundred or more countries that could bid. France and Russia in particular were illegally selling Iraq weapons under the oil for food program. Excluding them now doesn't seem at all unreasonable. If France should want to pay for some of the reconstruction, they can use a French firm to do it.

I am reminded of the comment made during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. "If these were countries without oil some low level State Department clerk would issue a statement of regret and then gone off on vacation."

But they do have oil.

And they do have al-Qaida

I read a book of review of this in _The Economist_ and thought I'd give it a try. Excellent book--the history of Iraq for the person who wants to understand more of what's going on over there but doesn't have a job as a full-time historian. Enough history was covered to give you a feel for the general state of affairs in Iraq, and it gave me some insight into why things are unfolding the way they are now. I think the single most shocking thing that I learned was that the British had already been down this path before, and their occupation of Iraq didn't fare any better than ours is. Why didn't someone in charge read a couple history books?!

I found the book to be pretty well-balanced and thought the author did a good job of keeping his personal opinions out of the text. He may lean a wee bit to the left (based on some of his sources), but nobody can keep their biases completely out of their work.

The fact that the author speaks both Arabic and Turkish gives him credibility in my eyes, since I firmly believe that if you're going to even attempt to understand another culture, you really do need to learn the language.

At any rate, I think what this guy has written has far more insight and depth than anything that's come out of the Bush administration since this whole fiasco in Iraq began.

Given the author's creditials, of which we are constantly reminded, I expected more out of this book. This is not to say it is a bad book per se. Dr. Polk does provide some excellent insights and points. Having just returned from over a year in Iraq and reading quite a bit on the subject before and during that time, I found various passages in his book that complemented my study and experiences. I would not, however, recommend this book to someone doing a casual read on the subject. Despite the title, "the Whole Sweep of Iraqi History..." merely serves to backup his critique of American policy in Iraq, particularly the alleged role of Neo-Conservatives. I don't necessarily disagree with many of his points--several are right on target--but the reader should understand that this is a book with a clear, political objective. At times the tone is shrill and his "facts" about the events of the last two years, many I witnessed, are often off. His critique of policy mistakes are generally valid, but his proposed solutions are surprisingly naive for someone with his experience with Iraq. While he is rightfully critical of the apparent ignorance of some policy makers and Americans in general about Iraq, I suspect he is guilty of the equally dangerous trap of going native and becoming too close to his subject for objective analysis. A far better book--certainly for someone just starting to read about Iraq--is "The Reckoning" by Sandra Mackey. If you only read one book on Iraq, read Mackey's not Polk's.

UNDERSTANDING IRAQ is a brief, but extremely valuable, survey of Iraq's history from the prehistoric Ubaidians to the 2004 Iraq Provisional Authority. The book is divided into six chapters: Ancient Iraq, Islamic Iraq, British Iraq, American Iraq, and Whose Iraq?. The history is interlaced with William Polk's views on how current US policy interacts with that history. He is well-qualified for this task, for he has spent nearly sixty years visiting, studying, and teaching about Iraq. Polk presents a much more credible explanation of why the United States has become unpopular in the Muslim world that Bernard Lewis did in his CRISIS OF ISLAM. He is also a better writer than Lewis, marshalling his facts and opinions into crisp, orderly prose.

Polk identifies mistakes recent US administrations have made in dealing with Iraq; many of them eerily similar to those made by the Brtish during their rule under League of Nations mandate in the 1920's and 1930's. The "shock and awe" of that era was generated by "armed Fords" and biplanes. The British installed as puppet king, Faisal, a man who had never previously set foot in the country. The US selected to head the Provisional Authority, Iyad al-Allawi, who once was a senior Baathist in Saddam's secret police and then for thirty years an anti-Saddam expatriate funded by the CIA. Another grievous US mistake, according to Polk, is in creating a large, well-trained Iraqi army instead of a large, well-trained Iraqi police force. It was the British-trained Iraqi army whose revolt in 1958 led to the dictatorship of Saddam.

Anyone still doubting the old saw about the need to learn from history to avoid repeating its mistakes ought to read the letter T E Lawrence (of Arabia)wrote to the London Times in 1920. "The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it..."