Who has used IBC, and for what? Here are the main categories of use, with examples of each.
Government uses of IBC
For predictable reasons, governments have been slow to refer to or acknowledge any systematic efforts to uncover details of civilian deaths in Iraq. In general, the pitifully few and inadequately detailed government statements on this matter have been evasive and defensive reactions to (also pitifully few) attempts by representatives and parliamentarians to raise the issue of civilian casualties through questions and debates. For further analysis on this issue, see IBC articles dating back to 2003 and 2004. 1 2
USA
1 Adding indifference to injury IBC, 7 Aug 2003.
2 Civilian deaths in “noble” Iraq mission pass 10,000 IBC, 7 Feb 2004.
3 Providing an accurate picture of events in Iraq (Letters to Editor) Guardian, 16 Dec 2006.
Reports including IBC data have been placed before congress, e.g. US Military and Iraqi Casualty Statistics. CRS report to Congress. April 26th 2005. (PDF)
The only significant mention by a senior member of the US government of a figure for Iraqi deaths came in a brief response from President G W Bush, when taking questions after a speech on 12th December 2005. Asked to provide an approximate total for all Iraqis killed since the beginning of the war, including military and insurgents as well as civilians, he replied “30,000, more or less.” At the time, the IBC web-site indicated 27,383 to 30,892 civilian deaths alone.3
UK
On 18th May 2004, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was interviewed on
BBC Radio’s influential news programme
“Today” and cited a recent IBC total of some 10,000 deaths (February
2004).
On November 17th 2004, Jack Straw again referred, this time explicitly, to IBC’s work in his written response to the Lancet Iraq Mortality Study of October 2004.
A number of parliamentary debates and questions have placed Iraq Body Count data on the official record of the UK Parliament: e.g. House of Lords Debate, 16th March 2005, speech of Lord Rea.