How Many Total War Deaths In Iraq? Iraq War Inquest Being Considered

How Many Total War Deaths In Iraq?

LONDON — On June 15, 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced an official Inquiry “to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict.”

The Iraq Inquiry was created to “to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened” during the period from two years before the 2003 invasion to July 30, 2009, covering “the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath.”

Describing his brief, the Inquiry’s Chair Sir John Chilcot declared his terms of reference “very broad.” Yet one subject was conspicuous by its absence from any number of promising statements about the Inquiry’s remit and aims.

In a letter to the chair, Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, representing Iraq Body Count, , wrote “We urgently request that your Inquiry take full and proper account of Iraqi casualties resulting from the conflict, and the subsequent breakdown in civil security, and that you permit us to submit evidence to the Inquiry on this most crucial question.”

They note that, in an inquiry a year ago, Iraq Body Count had urged that “new lessons” must be learned by the Inquiry, that should include ordinary Iraqis, the major casualties of the conflict. In light of the Inquiry’s failure to address this central issue, Iraq Body Count is now calling for the equivalent of an ‘Iraq War Inquest’ in the form of a full judicial inquiry into all of the war’s casualties, combatant and civilian, dead or injured.
One of their concerns is that the Inquiry failed to even make passing reference to the matter of Iraqi casualties, whether dead or injured, let along acknowledge its centrality to any objective assessment of the conflict.

“We hope that this does not indicate that this critical issue will continue to be relegated to a question of secondary importance. The British government’s very restricted interest in the accumulation and publishing of data on Iraqi casualties has long been a source of widespread dismay, as well as understandable anger, leading such distinguished persons as the 52 former British Diplomats, who wrote an open letter in April 2004 critical of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Middle East policies, to reserve their strongest language for ‘the disgrace’ of Coalition forces’ failure to track Iraqi deaths. The Iraq Inquiry offers a unique if belated opportunity to investigate Iraqi deaths comprehensively and in appropriate detail, and to critically assess the nature and extent of the damage resulting from our government’s persistent neglect of this issue.”

In their letter, Dardagan and Sloboda stated that, “In our view, the ‘very broad’ terms of reference of the Inquiry provide you with more than an opportunity to fully and properly investigate Iraqi casualties: they in effect mandate you to do so.

“In his statement to the House of Commons announcing the Iraq Inquiry, Prime Minister Gordon Brown presented the Inquiry with both the reason and means to carry out a first thoroughgoing, official investigation of Iraqi casualties. He referred no fewer than eight times to the principle of “lesson-learning,” stating bluntly that, ‘the objective is to learn the lessons from the events surrounding the conflict,’ and that he was giving the Inquiry ‘unprecedented’ scope to include events ‘in the full period of conflict.’”

They continued, “This scope includes ‘the run-up to the conflict…, the military action and its aftermath…the way…actions were taken…to establish…what happened and identify the lessons to be learned.’ One of the most important questions in situations of armed conflict and in the laws of war is whether the use of force has been a proportionate response to the threat that prompted it. It is impossible to establish the wisdom of actions taken – even if in hindsight and without a view to apportioning direct blame – if the full consequences in human welfare are not taken into account. Casualty data are perhaps the most glaring indication of the full costs of war.’”

Members of  the Inquiry committee included Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne, and Baroness Usha Prashar.

In their memo regarding the reason for the Inquiry, they published that “The Inquiry will take evidence over a number of months, with as many hearings as possible held in public. The first round of hearings began in autumn 2009 and continued into early 2010. After a break for the general election, the Inquiry resumed its public hearings in June for a period of five weeks. The Inquiry intends to deliver its report around the turn of the year. The Inquiry committee intends to include in the report all but the most sensitive information essential to our national security. The report will then be debated in Parliament.”

“The Inquiry wishes to be as open and transparent as possible about the approach and processes it will adopt,” noted its committee members. “The Protocols seek to establish a framework of mutual trust between the Inquiry and the witnesses in order to achieve the core aims of the Inquiry to establish a full and reliable account of what happened from which it will identify lessons for the future.

“The Inquiry expects that there will be interest in how it conducts its business, and in particular how it ensures fairness to witnesses whilst ensuring that it is able to elicit a full, accurate and truthful account of what happened.

“The Inquiry, itself, is not a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, so the Act does not apply. However, in addition to its hearings being open to the public and the media wherever possible, the Inquiry’s website will contain transcripts of public hearings and other key information relating to the work of the Inquiry.

Iraq Body Count has estimated the number documented civilian deaths in Iraq, 2003 to 2010, at 97,461 to 106,348.