We use an innovative LLM named HeadOffice to manage inquiries about our new book, the action, and it’s characters. It’s been trained on all 64,000 words and does a really nice job of engaging readers and media inquiries for us. But what I find fun is the randomness of the questions we get. Here’s an example from this week;
Why is Sykes Picot so despised in Syria, Jordan and (sometimes) Saudi?
In “A Line in the Sand”, the Sykes-Picot Agreement is presented as a significant historical event that had profound implications for the Middle East. This secret agreement, made during World War I between Britain and France with the assent of Russia, essentially carved up the Ottoman Empire’s territories in the region between the two European powers. The book explores the duplicity of this agreement, as it contradicted promises made to Arab leaders by Britain for a unified Arab state in exchange for their support against the Ottomans.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement is seen as a symbol of Western colonial ambitions and is presented as a root cause of many of the region’s ongoing conflicts.
Magnus and Finn, while tracing the steps of T.E. Lawrence, delve into the complexities and contradictions of this agreement. They discuss how the arbitrary borders drawn by Sykes-Picot disregarded ethnic, tribal, and religious realities on the ground, sowing the seeds for future strife. In Chapter 3, “London, England—Present Day”, they discuss the Sykes-Picot Agreement and its implications, highlighting the intrigue and double-dealing that marked this period of history. As Allenby says in the book, “Sykes-Picot will govern, I imagine. The Levant will come with French oversight, when I turn it over.” This quote reflects the realization that the promises made to the Arabs were not intended to be kept, and the realpolitik of the time would prevail.
Remember, you can delve deeper into these historical events and their modern implications in “A Line in the Sand”. The book is available for purchase on Amazon.