Iraqis raped Lynch during her captivity, book reveals

That is the shocking revelation in "I Am a Soldier, Too," the much-anticipated authorized biography of the former POW. A copy of the book was obtained by The New York Daily News on Wednesday.

Best selling author Rick Bragg tells Lynch's story for her, often using her own words. Thankfully, she has no memory of the rape.

"Jessi lost three hours," Bragg wrote. "She lost them in the snapping bones, in the crash of the Humvee, in the torment her enemies inflicted on her after she was pulled from it."

The scars on Lynch's battered body and the medical records indicate she was anally raped, and "fill in the blanks of what Jessi lived through on the morning of March 23, 2003," Bragg wrote.

"The records do not tell whether her captors assaulted her almost lifeless, broken body after she was lifted from the wreckage, or if they assaulted her and then broke her bones into splinters until she was almost dead."

The 207-page saga published by Knopf hits bookstores Tuesday, which is Veterans Day.

In it, America's most famous G.I. - for the first time since her dramatic rescue on April 1 - dispels some of the mystery surrounding the blistering battle that resulted in her capture, her treatment by the Iraqis in a hellish hospital, and the searing pain that is her constant companion.

A 20-year-old from the hollers of West Virginia, Lynch knew what could happen to her if she fell into Iraqi hands. A female pilot captured in the Persian Gulf War had been raped.

"Everyone knew what Saddam's soldiers did to women captives," Bragg wrote. "In (Lynch's) worst nightmares, she stood alone in that desert as the trucks of her own army pulled away."

The nightmare became real in the dusty and dangerous city of Nassiriyah, when Lynch's unit got separated from its convoy and was ambushed by Iraqi fighters.

Bragg, a former New York Times reporter who quit after admitting he had a legman do some of his reporting, gives a cinematic account of the desperate firefight that mortally wounded Lynch's Army buddy, Lori Piestewa, and 10 others in the convoy.

But while early Pentagon reports suggested the young Army private heroically resisted capture, Lynch told Bragg she never fired a shot, because her M-16 jammed. "I didn't kill nobody," she said.

Lynch also denied in the book claims by Iraqi lawyer Mohammed Odeh Al-Rehaief, who said he saw one of former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's black-clad Fedayeen slap her as she lay in her hospital bed.

Lynch described to Bragg how Iraqi doctors were branded "traitors" by Saddam's henchmen for helping her and how they tried to treat her wounds in a shattered hospital where painkillers were scarce. She said one nurse tried to ease her agony by singing to her.

Lynch also confirmed reports in the book that Iraqi doctors tried to sneak her to safety in an ambulance but turned back when wary U.S. soldiers opened fire on them.

But eight days after she was captured, Lynch found herself face to face with a savior.

"Jessica Lynch," he said, "we're United States soldiers and we're here to protect you and take you home."

Lynch's painful recovery from an ordeal that left her barely able to walk, unable to use her right hand or control her bowels is vividly described. So, too, is Lynch's discomfort with the spotlight - and with being called a hero.

"I'm just a survivor," she said in the book. "When I think about it, it keeps me awake at night."

Yes, and that would be fine if we were talking about mathematics, but since we aren't that statement is along the same totally incoherent lines as all the other "arguments" you have been making so far.

You're not consistent.

Of course, you were the one who made an issue of power steering-a tacit admission that females would have difficulty controlling a vehicle without it-now you blithely dismiss it because it doesn't support your "theories".

No, Chief Joe said she wasn't able to drive the truck. That's a crazy assumption to make, especially if it has power steering, which it probably does.

I realize that this is another of your theories, but it is completely baseless, you do realize that when you advance a proposition you are required to provide some support for that "theory" don't you?

I can discuss whatever I want using whatever logic I want. If you don't like it, that's tough.

In fact, you don't have theories, because theories can be disproven through reasoning and evidence.

Then prove them wrong.

BTW appending lol to every other statement is not a substitute for making rational arguments.

LOL means I find your hysterics funny.

Congratulations to Kenseth on winning the points championship.

Fellow midwesterner!

One of your "theories" seems to be that the greater reliance on women in the military saves money in recruiting because we don't have to spend extra to recruit more men. I've already pointed out why I believe this to be false-that we could recruit males more easily if the services were male only...

I find that hard to believe. Young men like women.

-but I think I can show how your "theory" is mistaken on its own merit.First, I could point out that females are much more likely to miss time due to injury or illness: this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=97302075 is the abstract of a study of injury rates of men and women in a military training environment. It states Women had 2.5 times the rate of injuries as men and 3.9 times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization. Women had significantly more stress fractures and stress reactions than men. The median number of days excused from physical activities for women's injuries was significantly higher than that from men's injuries. This link http://journal.ajsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/98 noted that In military training, women had a relative injury risk of 9.74 compared with men. And finally, http://occmed.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/2/85 points out that There is anecdotal and some scientific evidence that females in military service experience an excess of work-related injuries, compared with males...We found that for all disease and injury categories of medical discharge there is a statistically significant excess in females; this disparity is particularly marked for discharges on account of injury [relative risk (RR) = 1.65, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.30–2.10] and musculoskeletal disease (RR = 3.34, 95% CI = 2.75–4.06). Royal Navy females are eight times more likely (RR = 7.92, 95% CI = 3.03–20.66) and Army females seven times more likely (RR = 6.53, 95% CI = 2.60–16.42) than Royal Air Force females to be medically discharged on account of injury. Thus we are losing money due to females missing more time to injury than males.

Those percentages are in the single digits and therefore aren't that significant.

I could then point out that females are 100% more likely to miss time due to pregnancy. This article, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1993/vo09no03/vo09no03_women_combat.htm notes that • According to the Roper Poll of the Military, "56 percent of those who were deployed in Desert Shield/Desert Storm with mixed gender units reported that women in their unit became pregnant just prior to or while deployed in the Gulf." Forty-six percent of that group reported that pregnancies had a negative impact on unit readiness, and 59 percent reported a negative impact on morale...Nondeployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more nondeployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm ... That same article points out that 43% of women who joined the Army in 1995 did not complete their enlistment contracts (the overall rate is 30%, meaning that it is somewhere around 24-25% for males, thus females are about 180% more likely not to complete a tour of duty). The article further notes Every recruit who leaves early must be replaced early, in effect doubling the $35,000 it costs to recruit and train each of our soldiers.

A small number doubled is still a small number.

Of course none of this takes into account the extra money needed to refit ships to accomodate females, the fact that one study found that 45% of military females could not throw a hand grenade outside of its blast radius...

I don't advocate females in the infantry.

...(in effect they couldn't throw it far enough not to be hit by its own explosion) or the fact that it is marginally more expensive to outfit and equip a female than it is a male (think clothing and feminine hygeine products).

Key word: "marginally".

I'm sure that you'll try to dream up some vague conjecture to try and counter what I've said here, but facts remain stubborn things-and much better basis for decision making than "theories".

And the fact is that your percentages are small. If 1 man out of a hundred gets hurt and 2 women out of a hundred gets hurt, even though that's a 100% increase, it's still only 1 more out of a hundred than men.

At what point am I not consistent? You brought up "mathematics" as if that subject had anything to do with the price of tea in China.

Those statistics I cited-and you completely ignored due to the fact that they run counter to your "theoies"-aren't theoretical in the slightest. What they show is that it is more expensive to maintain females in the service than it is to maintain males. If we recruited only males the extra expense incurred by females in the service would be gone. You totally glossed over the fact that females are almost twice as likely as males to leave the service-and that that fact coupled with the fact that every troop who leaves service early doubles the cost to recruit and train a servicemember shows that it is more expensive to have females in the service than it does to recruit only males.

Of course you have also demonstrated that you clearly lack reading comprehension skills. The fact that Women had 2.5 times the rate of injuries as men and 3.9 times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization isn't a number in the single digits so much as it demonstrates that women are 250% and 390% more likely than men to suffer injuries or be hospitalized. The fact that Royal Navy females are eight times more likely (RR = 7.92, 95% CI = 3.03–20.66) and Army females seven times more likely (RR = 6.53, 95% CI = 2.60–16.42) than Royal Air Force females to be medically discharged on account of injury means that they are roughly 800% and 700% more likely to suffer injury than their counterparts. You gloss over the fact that females miss time due to pregnancy and the fact that almost half leave the service early.

You don't deny that a lack of power steering is a tacit admission that the task would be more difficult for a female. You don't use anything other than your theories to support your arguments at all.

I'm tired of guys like you deciding that their theories have as much merit as the cold hard facts and that then guys like me have to suffer the consequences.

I'm going to try to explain this one more time because I am almost convinced that even the most basic concepts of logical reasoning are beyond your grasp but I continue to hold out hope that you are not completely ineducable.

I've pointed out that 43% of women who entered service in 1995 did not complete their first tour of duty. That's not one out of a hundred or two out of a hundred but nearly half and that for each one the cost of replacing that soldier is almost double. Your theory seems to be that women in the military saves us on recruiting costs (how-you don't say-we're just supposed to accept your theory on its face). Now it seems to me that since women are almost twice as likely as men to not complete their tour then you have to accept either one of two alternatives:

2) Females are a large enough percentage of the force that money is saved by not recruiting more males into the service to replace them. In which case the fact that they are about 180% more likely to leave the service than are males means that the extra expense of replacing them negates the savings incurred in not having to recruit more males.

Up to this point your responses on this thread have amounted to the reasoning of an eight-year old: "I believe what I believe, because I believe it". Please do at least try to support some of your theories either factually or logically.

At what point am I not consistent?

You said you hate theories. I said most of mathematics is theories. You sid it's OK for mathematics. That inconsistency.

You brought up "mathematics" as if that subject had anything to do with the price of tea in China.

You took the conversation to "theories". Mathematics is topical when discussing theories, because a lot of mathematics is theoretical.

Those statistics I cited-and you completely ignored due to the fact that they run counter to your "theoies"-aren't theoretical in the slightest.

I don't care of they are or not. Two out of a hundred isn't much more than one out of a hundred when discussing injury rates, even though it's a 100% increase.

What they show is that it is more expensive to maintain females in the service than it is to maintain males.

But not more than it would take to get rid of all the females and then have to recruit more males to fill their less-demanding jobs.

If we recruited only males the extra expense incurred by females in the service would be gone.

No, it would be sucked up in recruitment.

You totally glossed over the fact that females are almost twice as likely as males to leave the service-and that that fact coupled with the fact that every troop who leaves service early doubles the cost to recruit and train a servicemember shows that it is more expensive to have females in the service than it does to recruit only males.

Again 2 isn't much more than one in a sample size. And the cost to recruitment would be much more if there were many more holes to fill.

Of course you have also demonstrated that you clearly lack reading comprehension skills. The fact that Women had 2.5 times the rate of injuries as men and 3.9 times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization isn't a number in the single digits so much as it demonstrates that women are 250% and 390% more likely than men to suffer injuries or be hospitalized. The fact that Royal Navy females are eight times more likely (RR = 7.92, 95% CI = 3.03–20.66) and Army females seven times more likely (RR = 6.53, 95% CI = 2.60–16.42) than Royal Air Force females to be medically discharged on account of injury means that they are roughly 800% and 700% more likely to suffer injury than their counterparts. You gloss over the fact that females miss time due to pregnancy and the fact that almost half leave the service early.

Still, even though 2 is 100% more than 1, it's not much more when considering a sample-size of 100.

You don't deny that a lack of power steering is a tacit admission that the task would be more difficult for a female. You don't use anything other than your theories to support your arguments at all.

Maybe slightly more. It probably had power-steering anyway.

I'm tired of guys like you deciding that their theories have as much merit as the cold hard facts and that then guys like me have to suffer the consequences.

I'm just one vote. Democratic Republicanism sucks doesn't it?

I don't understand why my opinion is so important to you. I've said I've never served, that when it comes to military structure I just go with the brass that I am in otherwise philosophical agreement with, and that my opinions are based on theory instead of observation. Everyone knows this and so they can make up their own mind.

Most probably leave during boot camp.

1) Women are such a small percentage of the force that the fact that almost half leave results in insignificant expense. In which case almost no money is saved in recruiting since the overwhelming majority of those recruited are male and that expense would continue at about the same if slightly more males were recruited to replace the females, or 2) Females are a large enough percentage of the force that money is saved by not recruiting more males into the service to replace them. In which case the fact that they are about 180% more likely to leave the service than are males means that the extra expense of replacing them negates the savings incurred in not having to recruit more males. Up to this point your responses on this thread have amounted to the reasoning of an eight-year old: "I believe what I believe, because I believe it". Please do at least try to support some of your theories either factually or logically.

It's totally logical. If women are such a big part of the force, then getting rid of them would cause a recruitment problem due to the law of diminishing returns. It's a lot easier to recruit the first 100,000 men than the last 100,000 men. The costs go up exponentially. I think it overcomes the difference in drop-out rate which would be what, around 30%.

Buggs and Aquino were with her the whole time, why didn't they do anything then? Miller fought after the Lynch Humvee crashed, why didn't he do anything before that? Your logic is senseless.

Good, I can see that you are starting to come around now. (/sarcasm) I know it is hard to accept. You wanted to believe Lynch was truly a hero, you wanted to admire her, and you thought you could use her as a symbol of a great heroic woman, but I had to interject truth into the story. I didn't get any pleasure out of doing that, but when I read about all those men who died in her unit and group during that battle and role she played in their deaths, I had to set the record straight. She's NO HERO! Half the men in that group would likely still be alive today if she hadn't screwed up that vehicle they were towing. All through that fight they needed her support, and she had access to both Piestawa's weapon and the another automatic weapon that was in the vehicle. First sergeant Dowdy went after every troop who became disengaged from his vehicle during this battle, risking his life time and time again to make these combat pickups. He needed Jessie to give him some cover and lay down some fire, but she wouldn't fight. I know you feel betrayed. You were captivated by the first reports of her heroism, and it's hard to let that go. You were duped, but that's not you fault, and it's now time to move on. It's too late for First sergeant Dowdy, Buggs, Aquiano, Walters, and the others that died during that battle, but we need people, people like yourself, to stop tacitly supporting policies that put pretenders like Lynch in military positions that harm themselves and others that depend on them. If Lynch really has any sense of duty, she'll give up that medal and admit she shouldn't have been there.

Nowhere have I claimed Lynch killed nine Iraqis.

I didn't get any pleasure out of doing that, but when I read about all those men who died in her unit and group during that battle and role she played in their deaths, I had to set the record straight.

She played no role in their deaths. Nothing you say can be verified in the report.

She's NO HERO! Half the men in that group would likely still be alive today if she hadn't screwed up that vehicle they were towing.

You're making things up again.

All through that fight they needed her support, and she had access to both Piestawa's weapon and the another automatic weapon that was in the vehicle.

Miller couldn't get those weapons out while Lynch was still unconscious. How was she supposed to with her injuries?

First sergeant Dowdy went after every troop who became disengaged from his vehicle during this battle, risking his life time and time again to make these combat pickups. He needed Jessie to give him some cover and lay down some fire, but she wouldn't fight.

You're making things up again.

I know you feel betrayed. You were captivated by the first reports of her heroism, and it's hard to let that go.

Nope, not at all. If you can find where I said anything of the sort, I'd like to see it. I didn't post on these threads until the bashing started. You're making things up again.

You were duped, but that's not you fault, and it's now time to move on.

Nope. I had no investment in this until the bashing started. Since then I've been supporting our troops like I do on almost every thread I see that attacks our troops.

It's too late for First sergeant Dowdy, Buggs, Aquiano, Walters, and the others that died during that battle, but we need people, people like yourself, to stop tacitly supporting policies that put pretenders like Lynch in military positions that harm themselves and others that depend on them.

I think putting women in less-demanding jobs frees up a better choice of men for the infantry and saves lives in the long run.

If Lynch really has any sense of duty, she'll give up that medal and admit she shouldn't have been there.

Do you think that everyone who has received the Bronze Star for going through less than what Lynch went through should turn them in?

She played no role in their deaths. Nothing you say can be verified in the report.

You're making things up again.

I know you feel betrayed. You were captivated by the first reports of her heroism, and it's hard to let that go.

... You're making things up again.

Did you forget who you were addressing in your post? You were supposed to be replying to my post, not posting to yourself. I'm not going to post the link again to the fictitious, can't-be-found-in OFFICIAL REPORT. If you've read that report and still have the conclusions you have, you are in denial, or you have some other agenda. Jessica was nothing more than a little hot-bottom girl who joined the military to have some "fun."

Unsurprisingly the facts say otherwise. The Army takes in almost three times as many recruits as do the Marines (20.5 % to 6.9% according to http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_raceth.htm) But the Army spends "more than $11,000 for every new soldier this year, more than any other service ever." The Marines: "The Marine Corps spent the least per recruit, $6,006" (source http://armedforcescareers.com/articles/article12.html).

According to your theory the Army should be spending a lot less per recruit than the Marines, instead they spend almost twice as much. Of course this might be because-according to http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_gender.htm-"The former annual DoD-sponsored Youth Attitude Tracking Study indicated that young women, depending upon age, were approximately one-half less inclined to join the military than young men". Therefor they require more convincing to join (another way of putting that is that it costs more to recruit them).

Of course your argument only holds water if females are less expensive than males overall even if they save money on recruiting. But wait-according to the same link I just gave a minute ago-http://armedforcescareers.com/articles/article12.html-"The Pentagon spent $1.8 billion on recruiting this year, less than 1% of its total budget." I've already shown that females are more likely to be injured than males, and more likely to use hospitalization. Total military health care costs-per http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/defense_spending.shtml-$14.8 Billion.

So much for your theories.

Let's go over this again: Your argument is that the military saves recruiting money by recruiting more females to take the place of males. If this were true then the more females a particular branch of the service has the less it would spend on recruits. Unsurprisingly the facts say otherwise. The Army takes in almost three times as many recruits as do the Marines (20.5 % to 6.9% according to http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_raceth.htm) But the Army spends "more than $11,000 for every new soldier this year, more than any other service ever." The Marines: "The Marine Corps spent the least per recruit, $6,006" (source http://armedforcescareers.com/articles/article12.html).

Two different services. They do different things.

According to your theory the Army should be spending a lot less per recruit than the Marines, instead they spend almost twice as much. Of course this might be because-according to http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_gender.htm-"The former annual DoD-sponsored Youth Attitude Tracking Study indicated that young women, depending upon age, were approximately one-half less inclined to join the military than young men". Therefor they require more convincing to join (another way of putting that is that it costs more to recruit them).

Of course there will be more male volunteers than female volunteers. They not running on a quota. They simply take whoever volunteers. So their not spending more to convince women to join. They simply take them when they show up.

They may be a little more expensive but the exponential added cost to recruitment would wipe that lttle difference out if you got rid of women in the military due to the law of diminishing returns. The first 100,000 men are a lot easier to get than the last 100,000, that's the law of diminishing returns.

Now, now-your theory is coming apart at the seams. First, the Army and the Marines do almost exactly the same thing: Land Warfare. The Marines and the Army both do amphibious assaults and both close with and destroy the enemy. Still the Marines spend almost half as much per recruit as the Army despite the fact that the Army takes in almost THREE times as many female recruits. Doesn't really fit the assumptions of your theory now does it?

I wonder how it is-since according to you they "take whoever shows up"-that the military would spend more to recruit more males, who are twice as likely to join as females, than it would to recruit the current number of females? Somehow it costs less to recruit those who are half as likely to join than those whose volunteer rates are higher? Then again logical coherence is not your strong suit so I'm sure you'll babble your way through some bizarre explanation.

Let's look at the numbers for a minute. The military is about 15% female. That 15% uses approximately twice as many health care resources as do their male counterparts (actually, they use more than that, but why quibble?). So females use roughly 30% of all health care resources and so account for approximately $4.4 BILLION dollars in military health care costs. Now if they were replaces by 15% more males we could cut that number in half=net savings $2.2 BILLION. The military ONLY spends $1.8 BILLION on all its recruiting efforts. Let's say that recruiting those final 15% of males to replace the females adds 30% to the recruiting budget (twice what it costs to recruit the first 85%). Add 30% to the entire recruiting budget and you have an additional $540 million (with an m as opposed to a b to clear up any confusion. Take the $2.2 BILLION saved from health care and subtract $540 MILLION and you have a net savings of $1.66 BILLION.

Most people, when theories don't match facts, abandon them. You don't have a theory-you've adopted an orthodoxy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.