Previous page | Contents | Next page
17  |  Civilian casualties
Witness comment
239.  The Inquiry asked Mr Ingram, Minister for the Armed Forces from June 2001 to
June 2007, why the UK Government had been unable to produce an estimate of civilian
casualties when other organisations including NGOs and academic organisations had
done so, in particular given the public interest on the issue.153
240.  Mr Ingram told the Inquiry:
“The idea that somehow or other an NGO is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge
and accuracy I don’t think stands up.
“So if we were going to take the figures from external sources, then we would have
had to put effort and verification into that. Should we have done so? Perhaps, yes,
and I’m not so sure it wasn’t being done …”
241.  Mr Ingram added that establishing the number of civilian casualties would not have
changed the reality on the ground:
“… the concept of ground truth is absolutely vital in this and, by establishing that
fact, wouldn’t have altered where we were. Because we couldn’t, in one sense,
easily have stopped the civilian casualties because it wasn’t being carried out by us
on the civilians, it was being carried out by the tribal wars, the family feuds, by the
Sunni/Shia factionalism that was taking place, by the Shia on Shia factionalism that
was taking place, but we … were being vilified, attacked and criticised that we had
precipitated all of this.
“I have to say I believe that to be a false logic, because that may have happened
at any time under Saddam Hussein and, therefore, the establishment of the facts
perhaps should have been carried out by – elsewhere in Government. I don’t really
think it was an MOD function in that sense.”
242.  The Inquiry asked Mr Ingram whether the Government would not have been better
placed than external organisations to develop credible estimates of civilian casualties,
and asked which department within government should have been responsible for
producing such estimates. Mr Ingram told the Inquiry:
“You [the responsible department] have then to go to the hospitals. You then have
to put civilians or a military person at that hospital counting the bodies in and the
bodies out. So you need force protection to do that. You put people at risk to do that.
Is that what people wanted, soldiers or civilians being killed at hospitals? Because
they would have been at risk.
“… the UN may have been the mechanism by which we’d establish true facts, but
they were withdrawn.
153  Public hearing, 16 July 2010, pages 30‑34.
213
Previous page | Contents | Next page