RITISH and Russian operations in Western Asia are widely dispersed and appear to be unconnected, yet they are all concentric and tend to merge into a single campaign. Each and all have a common objective, and co-operation is secured through the higher commands being kept advised of the plans of the allied war council. To the latter they are units in a single campaign comprising the Russo-Siberian right wing in Armenia and Kurdistan, the Anglo-Indian centre operating from Bagdad, and the Anglo-Anzac left wing advancing through Palestine.

The centre is thrusting as a javelin at Aleppo and the Cicilian Gate, and, incidentally, seeking to establish contact with the right wing beyond Mosul. Its Euphrates column will later co-operate effectively with the left wing in Syria. The operations of the centre are of supreme interest, as they threaten to cut the Ottoman Empire in two.

Kut-el-Amara did not fall to the British for the second time as the issue of a hard-fought battle, but rather as the sequence of a successful series of small tactical engagements. These were strictly in accordance with military maxims on minor tactics and are interesting in themselves.

The Tigris, in its course below Bagdad and until it passes beyond Kut-elAmara, assumes a remarkable series of corrugations inclosing little peninsulas, some of which project into the side held by the British and others into the side held by the Turks. Kut-el-Amara itself is situated at the point of one of these peninsula projections which encroach upon the British side, and it was flanked on either side by a reverse salient peninsula across which the Turks had intrenched themselves to the next bend in the river. They could only protect the town in this way, because if they abandoned these trenches the British, without crossing the river, could fire into Kut-elAmara from three sides and make its re

tention impossible. As a further protection, the Turks held some points of vantage on a line running south from the Shamrun bend, which were so situated as to enfilade any direct assault upon the trenches and at the same time to circumvent any flanking movement to the north. Fall of Kut-el-Amara

Before daybreak on Feb. 15 British infantry rushed some ruins on their left flank, while the machine guns picked off the defenders as they retired. A heavy bombardment followed, and a direct assault was ordered upon the Ottoman right centre. As the infantry approached, the Turks surrendered and the trenches were further extended by bombing. Similar procedure in the afternoon secured the remainder of the trenches. The whole of the Dahra Peninsula, west of the town, had now been captured, with the exception that a few Turks still held out at the extreme tip. After dark these were rushed and surrendered. Meanwhile cavalry cleared the vantage ground to the south and west of the Shamrun bend. These tactical successes were no sooner achieved than the rain came down in torrents-too late to save the Turks. Further operations were stopped for the time being. In all 1,995 prisoners were taken, which for a minor engagement compares with the 1,650 taken by General Townshend at the first battle of Kut-elAmara, the 1,600 taken by him at Ctesiphon, and the 2,080 taken at Amara.

By way of diversion the operations were next resumed at the Sanna-i-yat Gap, some twenty miles away, and were so far successful that they drew the enemy's attention in that direction. General Sir F. S. Maude now deemed it possible to force a crossing of the Tigris River, which was then in flood, and planned accordingly. Early on the morning of Feb. 23 covering parties were ferried across the river and others later in the day, while the resistance of the Turks was held down by artillery and machinegun fire. When sufficient clearance had

been obtained, a pontoon bridge was thrown across the 400 yards of flooded river and troops streamed across. By next morning the neck of the Shamrun Peninsula had been captured and 544 prisoners taken. Simultaneously the third and fourth line of trenches at Sanna-i-yat were taken by assault.

The Turks, recognizing that the game was up, evacuated Kut-el-Amara and retired rapidly toward Baghela, their forward base, some twenty-four miles upstream.

Capture of Bagdad

The Anglo-Indian cavalry and horse artillery rode hard for the enemy's right flank, while the infantry engaged his rear guard and the river gunboats harassed his left. On the afternoon of Feb. 26 the gunboats Tarantula, Mantis, and Moth passed the Ottoman Army in retreat and inflicted heavy loss on it. They later captured a number of Turkish steamers and barges and recovered the gunboat Firefly, which had been abandoned in the retreat from Ctesiphon in December, 1915. The pursuit on land was maintained, notwithstanding a sand storm, and came up with the Turkish rear guard at Lajj, who moved on when the Anglo-Indian vanguard attacked from three sides. The cavalry swept through Ctesiphon without opposition and drew rein six miles south of the Diala River, which joins the Tigris eight miles below Bagdad. Ctesiphon was the Winter capital of the Parthians, the redoubtable horsemen who checked the Roman power in the East. It was near here that the Roman Emperor Julian was defeated in 363 A. D. and lost his life. On the opposite bank of the river are the ruins of Seleucia, the capital of the Syrian Kings who succeeded to the empire of Alexander the Great.

The left wing of General Maude's army, under Sir Percy Lake, threw a bridge across the Tigris below its confluence with the Diala, and, crossing over, marched upon Bagdad. After a trying march of eighteen miles in the heat and dust they were confronted with the Turkish intrenchments six miles southwest of Bagdad. These were attacked at once and the defenders driven

back upon their second line, two miles in the rear.

Meanwhile, the centre and right wing under General Kearny met with considerable resistance from the Turks on the Diala front, but succeeded in forcing a passage on the night of March 8, and improved their position next day. On March 10 a concerted assault on both sides of the river drove the Turks back upon the environs of Bagdad, and during the night they evacuated their defenses. At dawn next morning the British entered the city and recovered the guns surrendered at Kut-el-Amara. The Turks abandoned 500 of their wounded and two-thirds of their artillery.

Bagdad is not of strategic importance, situated as it is in the centre of an open plain 200 miles wide and built on both sides of the Tigris. It is connected by canal with the Euphrates, which at this point is only twenty miles distant. This juxtaposition of the two rivers in relation to the City of Bagdad made it impossible for the Turks to retain their hold on the lower Euphrates above Nasiriyeh when their main force on the Tigris withdrew from Kut-el-Amara. The whole of the grain-bearing and irrigable lands of Babylonia, therefore, fell to the British with the capture of Bagdad.

Civil Rule of Babylonia

The British Commander in Chief issued a proclamation to the people of Bagdad stating inter alia: That the British and Bagdad merchants had traded for 200 years with profit and mutual friendship; that the Turks since the time of Midhat Pasha had been profuse with promises of reform and barren of performances; and that the Germans during the twenty years they had been in Bagdad had made of it a centre from which to assail the great British Raj and the mighty Russian Empire. It concludes by emphasizing that the British Government cannot permit this to happen again in Bagdad and calls upon the inhabitants to co-operate with the British civil authorities who will now administer the country.

The Flight from Persia

The Persian boundary hills rise abruptly from the Mesopotamian plain like a natural wall 4,000 to 5,000 feet high.

In this respect they resemble the Himalayas in India, although not so high or so steep. From the western plain two tolerable roads penetrate this mountain barrier, but they are tolerable only in a comparative sense. One is the caravan route from Mosul to Tabriz, and the cther is the caravan route from Bagdad to Teheran via Kermanshah and Hamadan. These boundary hills are inhabited by the Kurds, a brave and warlike race who, in the present war, have thrown in their lot with the Turks, but as they acknowledge neither Shah nor Sultan as their suzerain the political boundary between Turkey and Persia in these parts has little meaning.

East of the Kurd country the hills sink down into the Iran Plateau, and there the roads are better, although difficult in places.

The most westerly of the Persian main roads is the one running north and south

from Tabriz to Kermanshah, where it connects at right angles with the Bagdad-Teheran caravan route. The Turkish contingents in Persia were spread out along these roads when the order of recall reached them after their main army commenced its retreat from Kut-elAmara. One detachment was away to the east of Hamadan, while another was north of Sakhiz. Both had to fall back beyond the crossroads at Kermanshah, and if their arrival at that place did not synchronize then the laggard would be cut off by the Russian vanguard pursuing the leading contingent. This actually happened. The retreat of the Hamadan contingent was so rapid-probably due to the defection of the Kurds-that the Russians entered Kermanshah before the Sakhiz contingent had arrived. The latter, therefore, were cut off and took to the Kurd hills.

Meanwhile the Indian Government has

re-established order and stable conditions within the British sphere of influence in Southern Persia. Sir Percy Sykes, with an Indian escort, marched from Bander Abbas to Ispahan and later to Teheran-a journey of over a thousand miles overland. His mission was to establish a Government in Persia satisfactory to the Entente, and to raise a force of military gendarmerie under Anglo-Indian officers. Both objects have been attained.

Invasion of Palestine

The British Army from Egypt under General Sir Archibald Murray, formerly Chief of the General Staff, having laid down a military railway across the Sinai Desert to Rafa on the Turkish border, embarked upon the invasion of Palestine. The topography of the country, which is familiar to Biblical students, left no doubt as to the route they would take even had there not been the historical precedent of Napoleon's march from Gaza to Acre in 1799, where he was repulsed after a 61-day siege by the Turkish garrison under old Djezzar Pasha, assisted by a British naval contingent under Sir Sidney Smith. The whole of the western side of Palestine is an open plain bordering upon the Mediterranean and flanked on the east by the hills of Hebron, Jerusalem, and Gibeon. Whatever sentimental interest may attach to the famous City of Jerusalem, it is not a military objective in the present campaign; the immediate purpose is to seize Damascus and Beirut, and join hands with the left wing of General Maude's army in Mesopotamia.

The invasion of Palestine commenced with a march of fifteen miles to the Wadi Ghuzzeh, a river five miles south of Gaza, with the object of advancing the railhead. The river was reached without opposition, but as the Turks seemed undecided to stand, and it was desirable to hold them, General Sir Charles Dobell, in command of the advance forces, decided to strike for the town of Gaza. A dense fog delayed the advance, and then the water supply gave out, so that the contemplated manoeuvre had to be abandoned, and a defensive position was taken up midway between

Gaza and the river. The Turks, with 20,000 men, attacked on March 27, but were repulsed everywhere with heavy loss. The British camelry corps completely outfought the Turkish cavalry and captured a General and the entire divisional staff of the Fifty-third Turkish Division. The Turkish losses are estimated at 8,000 men, including 950 prisoners, and two Austrian howitzers were captured. The British losses are given as 400 dead, 200 missing-believed to have fought their way into Gaza and been cut off-and wounded not stated. Their advance column retired on the river, leaving the camelry in contact with the Turks, who showed no disposition to renew the attack.

Gaza has been prominent in the world's history. It was near here that Selim I. of Turkey decisively defeated the Sultan of Egypt in 1517 and led to the Ottoman acquisition of that country. After the Generals of Alexander the Great disagreed as to how they should divide his empire among themselves, Ptolemy gained a sweeping victory over Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, at Gaza in 312 B. C., and this enabled Selucus Nicator, then a refugee in Egypt, to return to his satrapy at Babylon and regain most of the dominion of his great predecessor.

British Aim in Palestine

Syria in bygone days has been conquered by Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Macedonians, Seleucidae, Romans, Arabs, Egyptians, Mongols, and Turks, but never in its long history have such large armies been aligned for battle as are now contending for its possession. To meet the new invasion the Turks have 120,000 men deeply dug in between Gaza and Beersheba, while another army is protecting them from a flank attack upon their communications by the Anglo-Indian force ascending the Euphrates. The Turks consider Syria and Palestine of vital importance to them-not so much that it threatens Egypt as that it is a necessary point d'appui for recovering the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from the Arabs; Jerusalem, also, is a sacred city as well

to the Moslems as to the Christians and Hebrews.

The British, on the other hand, are committed to the policy of setting free the Semitic races in Arabia, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Syria from Turkish domination, and this policy marches with their own interests in safeguarding India and Egypt. The collapse of Russia, whether temporary or otherwise, will not deter them from their purpose, for India is set on removing the Teuton menace and ending the religious and rapacious prestige of the Turks. India is specially interested in the Euphrates and Tigris Valleys, and her troops are mainly operating in this theatre. Imperial and oversea troops only are engaged in the Holy Land.

The Russian revolution, coinciding Iwith the Ottoman defeats in Palestine and Mesopotamia, enabled the Turks to withdraw troops from Armenia and the eastern front and send them to oppose the British. This had the immediate effect of checking the progress of the latter until they, too, could be reinforced. Particularly it affected the position in Palestine and caused a reversion to trench warfare. Gaza is now a modern fortress flanked by trenches and commanding eminences as far as Beersheba. The country to the south of Gaza is an open plain traversed by the Waddy Guzzeh, (River Gaza,) which at present is dry, although at times a raging torrent. To the west are sand dunes reaching to the Mediterranean, and to the east a range of hills.

At daybreak on April 17 the British advance began under cover of an enfilade fire from a warship and the usual field artillery preparation. The Turkish advance positions were captured on a front of over six miles. Next day advantage was taken of a duststorm to rush up supplies to the front while the movements of the motor transport were obscure to the opposing artillery, and the following morning the bombardment of the main position commenced. The infantry attack was only partially successful, and, although continued next day, was not pushed home, as the frontal position was apparently too strong for direct assault.

A Turkish counterattack in one section of the front by 3,000 infantry and 800 cavalry was broken up through a squadron of British airplanes dropping fortyseven bombs directly on them. When last seen the Turkish cavalry was still flying. Reinforcements have since reached the British commander.

Strategic Considerations

After the fall of Bagdad, the Turks had the choice of two routes along which to retreat-either to ascend the Tigris to Mosul or the Euphrates to Aleppoand they decided to take both. The Euphrates Valley had been the old caravan road between Syria and Mesopotamia for 3,000 years, and it offered the best march, yet it had few natural defenses to impede a pursuing enemy. Nevertheless, it was necessary to send some troops by this route to delay the British as long as possible while fresh troops were being assembled for the defense of Aleppo, the Amanus Tunnel, and the communications of the Syrian Army. On the other hand, the only hope of extricating the Turkish contingent in Persia was for the main army to retire up the Tigris and attempt to hold on the headwaters of the Diala River until such time as a reunion had been effected with their detached wing. The railway had been completed from Bagdad to Samara, but there was nothing in the way of rolling stock except the construction outfit. Beyond Tekrit a range of hills runs southeast toward the Diala River in the direction of Khanikin, whence the Persian column might be expected to emerge. Here the Turks decided to make a stand.

In Upper Mesopotamia

Sir Stanley Maude's operations from Bagdad are projected upon five lines of advance. His left wing crossing the intervening space between the two rivers —from which Mesopotamia takes its name-seized Feluja on the Euphrates as its starting point. Its immediate purpose is to ascend that river and hold the crossroads at El Deir, which lead to Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, Urfa, Mosul, and Bagdad. Possession of El Deir would afford opportunities for striking at the main communications of the Turks in