News Search Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind Site search Web search Story archive		30-01-2006 Scotsman Analysis:Truth may be first casualty once again By Gethin Chamberlain WHEN John Reid said earlier this month that 230 soldiers had been injured in action since the start of the war in Iraq, military eyebrows shot up. Not only did it represent a tiny fraction of the 4,000 troops evacuated from Iraq on medical grounds since March 2003, it also seemed disproportionate to the number of British personnel killed during the conflict. US forces in Iraq have suffered a casualty rate of about one dead to seven wounded in action. Britain, if the MoD figure is to be believed, is recording a ratio of one to three. So how, and why, did the Ministry of Defence settle on such a figure? It claims the numbers relate to admissions to its field hospital at the Shaibah base south of Basra, though this was not operational until the war was well underway. It has conceded that many hundreds more may have been injured and treated by medics in the field. It says it has no way of collating these figures. From the start of the war, the MoD has been reluctant to give out figures for injuries. It has, at various times, claimed that details of combat injuries were not kept because medical staff were too busy treating casualties; that there were records but that collating them was too time-consuming; and, recently, that there had been no agreed criteria for classifying combat injuries. The MoD does not explain why, having initially denied having details of casualties, it is now able to come up with a figure. Sir Tim Garden, former assistant chief of the defence staff, admits he is puzzled at the MoD's inability to come up with accurate figures. "It would be astonishing if they didn't have a breakdown of the figures," he said. But he added: "There is a reluctance to give you any bad news." The only previous count of those injured in action came from Ivor Caplin, under secretary of state for defence, in response to a parliamentary question last January. He said 790 of those evacuated from Iraq since the start of the war had sustained injuries "as a result of hostile actions, accidents and other incidents". His answer also made it clear that casualties were treated at a number of locations other than at Shaibah field hospital during the war. He said each ship, army and air unit had its own medical facilities for dealing with minor casualties, while more extensive medical units were attached to 7 Armoured Brigade, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. It is clear that the 230 figure is wrong: what remains unclear is why. Given that the figures are known to exist, the suspicion must be that it the government considers it too politically sensitive to reveal the true human cost of the war in Iraq.
		................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved.