Hunt_Blood

//Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I,// Marty Callaghan, 2006
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

I watched this DVD not knowing what to expect. It turned out this was a very detailed historical recount of what transpired leading up to and in World War I, particularly what happened in the Middle East with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Admittedly, it is much more historical account than it is argumentative documentary, like most films we watch, but it does in fact have a place in this class and in my personal interests. Being primarily interested in the international oil industry and public policy so driven, I wanted to see how oil began its relationship with 20th century societies. This film examines the devastating conflict and Western political intrigue that laid the foundation for wars, coups, revolts and military interventions in the Middle East. After the end of World War I, most of the Ottoman Empire was carved up into "spheres of influence," controlled mostly by the British and French. The remaining territories became the modern state of Turkey in 1923 - after a five-year struggle by Turkish nationalists against Western domination. Within the film we see how oil rich areas in the Middle East became strategic pawns in the West’s grand view of global hegemony.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

This film does not at all discuss the most obvious sustainability problems. It does however describe some very important history behind the modern phenomena that now “bless” us with many sustainability problems.
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * -Oil as valued commodity: Pretty much all formal wars have occurred for religious or cultural differences, for space constraints, or for access to resources. Resources in particular have always been fought over by mankind, but oil in particular was first formally used as a strategic point for military use in WWI. Specifically, the Middle East as a prime source of oil wealth, becomes a first target for Western interests around WWI. Around the start of the war, 1914, British troops flew into Basra, Persia (Iraq) to protect oil fields from the Ottoman Empire. Around 1911, British troops had switched from coal to oil as the fuel for military machines. On the second day of the war, Nov 6th, 1914, Britain lands troops in Abadan to protect the wells there as, “Oil has become the fuel of the Western world.” GB & France had spent a good deal of money developing wells around the area and thus needed to protect their interests. They’d spend the next few years clearing out any Arabs or Turks from the wells. On March 17th, 1917, the British would capture Baghdad and would make it all the way to Jerusalem. At a certain point during the war, Britain controlled all of the oil in modern day Iraq. By the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire would be split up and the Western victors would try their best to retain the best oil interests around. In the Sykes-Picot agreement the Middle East would be divided up according to Western interests. This agreement led to the British and French control in most of the Mediterranean part of the Middle East and eventually the Jewish state in Palestine.
 * -War as sustainability problem: War in and of itself should be considered a sustainability problem. All wars focus human time and energy on killing other humans, something that serves no purpose to progress humanity. Ecosystems are destroyed during battles and bombs blow up buildings that will need reconstruction. An interesting research project for someone to do might be a case study of the resource and financial cost to rebuilding a particular community ravaged by war to see what the opportunity cost was. In only the most morbid sense, the only even remotely positive side of war would be the reduction of population.

There really is little argument in the film other than historical fact. However, the viewer can compose their own persuasive arguments based on the historical antecedents discussed in the film. For me, I really had no idea WWI was so instrumental in creating some of the underlying hatred of the West that is prevalent in the Middle East. Sure I tend to agree that the West was righteous in having defended themselves from the aggressors in WWI, but I did not realize the West would gain a strongly oppressive and exploitive grip on the Middle East as it did. Common knowledge of WWI sort of has the war taking place in trenches around Eastern/Central Europe. All this truth further underwrites the sort of arguments I have heard from scholars like Chomsky, in his writings such as //The Hegemony of Power//, that discuss the current “blowback” towards the West from such Eastern countries that have face Western oppression and exploitation throughout the 20th century. This is why this movie was compelling.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

With little to no “argument” in the film, it is hard to argue with or disagree with. I think the film could have been a little less dry and could have certainly been better produced and designed graphically. I was also surprised that oil was actually little discussed compared to war “tactics” and “strategy” in general. It took about 30 minutes to get to the first mention of oil.
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

This film pushes me to seek even more history behind the first Western assault on the Middle East. There is no doubt in my mind that the “blowback,” as terrorism, has everything to do with historic Western meddling in the affairs of Middle Easterners.
 * 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

This film seemed mostly directed at those interested in a strongly historical perspective on WWI from the point of view of the Middle East. It was a bit dry, but it could work for educating most audiences. The film piques the viewer to think more critically about the Western relationship with the East. Again, the environmental connotations are much more vague than most films we watch, however it is stil la relevant film.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

There really is no discussion of intervention. It is purely a historical documentary.
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

I wouldn’t change a whole lot about the film. I would however spice up the graphics and up the production on the film. It can be quite dry at times visually.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

[] [] []
 * Citations:**