On 08-Dec-04 Ray Thomas wrote:
> Have I missed something? Is there a Bush-Blair estimate?
> If so how was it made?
Following up in a more concrete fashion, I recall that
(as I posted to RadStats on 9 November, quoting from Hansard)
in response to
Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the claims in the Lancet magazine
that 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as the result of
the military action by the coalition forces.
the Baroness Symons (Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office) responded:
My Lords, there are no reliable or comprehensive figures for
Iraqi civilian casualties. Such estimates that exist are not
comparable in terms of periods covered or methodologies used.
The Lancet article suggests a range of between 8,000 and
194,000 deaths over the period March 2003 to September 2004,
while the Iraq body count website suggests a range of just
over 14,270 to just over 16,400 over the same period.
The Iraqi Ministry of Health says that just under 4,000
civilians have been killed in the past six months. My right
honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has stated that when
the Lancet estimates have been analysed, he will make a
Statement to another place, and I shall put a copy in your
Lordships' Library.
There has duly been a followup in the Lords, by Baroness Symons
(Written statement, Hansard 17 Nov 2004 : Column WS61-WS64), which
begins:
This Statement provides a response to the article "Mortality
before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample
survey" published in the Lancet on 29 October concerning
civilian casualties since the beginning of military action
in Iraq in March 2003.
It is far too long to quote here, and you can find it on:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/
pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds04/text/41117-41.htm
[all one line].
It ends:
So while recognising the bravery and professionalism of
those conducting the Lancet study, the Government do not
accept its central conclusion, and continue to believe that
the most reliable figures for casualties in Iraq are those
provided by Iraqi hospitals to the Iraqi Ministry of Health.
This estimate (as of 8 Nov) was "just under 4,000" (see above),
it is the lowest of all the numbers floating around (and, in
relation to Martin Bland's point, it is outside the Lancet's
Confidence Interval of 8000-193000). It represents (if I understand
aright) the numbers of "civilian" deaths that have occurred in
Iraqi hospitals (i.e. not counting those of people classified as
"combatant", for which the criterion apparently is "Male, 15-59
years old -- see the Hansard statement).
Since this has been formally delivered as a statement to the
House of Lords, I think we can take it to be the "Blair estimate".
Since the American position is "We don't do body counts", how
else could Bush get any estimate except from his ally's careful
scientific review (see the Hansard statement) of the conclusions
of the Lancet article? So it probably is fair to call it the
"Blair-Bush estimate".
The "deaths in hospital" inference is supported by:
Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs what methods are being used to
examine the report in The Lancet on Iraqi civilian deaths;
which personnel have been assigned to conduct the examination;
and when the examination began. [197211]
Mr. Mullin: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made
a written statement on The Lancet report on 17 November 2004,
Official Report, columns 92-95WS). The estimate made in The
Lancet article is at marked variance with the civilian death
rate shown in figures compiled by Iraqi hospital staff since
April. These figures, which report just under 4,000 Iraqi
civilian casualties for the last 6 months, come from admissions
to 182 hospitals.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/
cmhansrd/cm041118/text/41118w26.htm#41118w26.html_spnew1
[all one line]
I take the Foreign Secretary's written statement to be effectively
the same as Baroness Symons' above though I have not been able to
locate it in Hansard.
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 [NB: New number!]
Date: 08-Dec-04 Time: 20:42:34
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|