There's a legitimate need for a modern account of the British campaign in Mesopotamia in World War I; sad to say this book really isn't it. Oh Wilcox has more then enough detail, seeing as he based his study on the British official history, but there are just little statements here and there that make one wince, and then make one wonder what else he misinterpreted. Examples off the top of my head include his throwaway comment about the how the Yezidi people of Iraq are "devil worshippers" or how when the Royal Navy forced these Turkish river defenses on the final push to Baghdad Wilcox comments that: "As a naval action it must have been unique." This is only if you have very carefully avoided studying the American Civil War. Wilcox also seems to have been very impressed with himself for the superficial comparisons he makes between Mesopotamia in World War I and Iraq now. Superficial might be the most damning phrase you could throw at Wilcox, as his bibliography might be acceptable for an Osprey booklet, but that's about it.

As for what Wilcox gets right, his prose is vigorous and his account of the seige of Kut (the linchpin of this book) is gripping. His emphasis on bad planning and logistics is also welcome in a popular account. Again, Wilcox engenders enough doubts with the attitude he radiates that I do wonder what mistakes a specialist would find that I'm not. ( )