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."

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?

Again, the two different services will have two different priorities, budgets and expenses. The Marines are part of the Navy also so there's a lot going on here that could affect the money spent on each servicemember.

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.

They're not running on a quota your point isn't relevent. Since they're not running on a quota, then the cost to recruit an all-male Army would still be a lot more expensive than the cost to recruit an all-male Marines. So then you get back to the law of diminishing returns again. If you got rid of all the females in the military, then the cost of recruitment would rise exponentially due to the law of diminishing returns.

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

LOL You're forgetting my original point though, that having females fill the less-demanding jobs frees up a better choice of men for the infantry which saves lives over the long haul. Even if your numbers are correct, there are 280,000,000 Americans. Is it worth 6 bucks per year per American to have a better choice of men for the front lines to save lives, I'd say so.

I don't see how recruiting men to replace the females changes who goes into the infantry (women are forbidden these types of jobs, but males choose whatever MOS they like and so the same people would go into the infantry regardless, but the support troops would be safer when they come into contact with the enemy, because you would have that many more David Miller's...

You mean Patrick?

...and that many fewer Jessica Lynch's). So much for that theory.

By filling up the less-demanding jobs with women, there is a better choice of men for the more-demanding jobs. More choice means better men which saves lives.

Come up with $2.2 BILLION worth of savings from recruiting females or admit that your theory about saving money is baseless.

You just threw a bunch of numbers out there and you got Miller's name wrong so how do I know you're right about your numbers? The cost to recruitment goes up exponentially as you need more and more holes filled. By replacing every female, the recruitment costs would be much more for the last holes to be filled than the first due to the law of diminishing returns. Regardless, my main point was the lives saved aspect and better fighting men. If more units got in trouble due to a lesser choice of men, it would overshadow the extra health care costs, not to mention the soldier's lives, which you can't put a price on. If women are so worthless and too expensive to employ, why due companies hire them?

Companies-in the private sector-may do what they like. The expense of employing females in the private sector, and whatever benefits they provide to companies is irrelevant. How that has any bearing on what females cost the military is totally beside the question (again!). You don't explain how having more females equates to more males in the infantry since everyone chooses whatever military job they wish on enlisting (females are excluded from the Infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's). Those that would choose infanty would still choose infantry-you are drawing on a males only pool in any event. I fail to see how having more males to choose from for all male careers would result in less quality.

Now who's laughing. I got Miller's name wrong-big deal. I've provided facts and sources to bolster my arguments. You haven't sone anything but theorize (and I've shot every single one of those down).

I've shown an addition $2.2 Billion in health care costs alone for the military to provide for females (leaving out time lost from work due to those same injuries, pregnancy and the fact that women are about 180% more likely than men to leave the service early). You haven't supported a single one of your theories with even the vaguest imitation of a fact. This hardly qualifies as a debate, this is just me smacking you around. You're a glutton for punishment, but I refuse to let someone as ignorant as you have the last word on a topic as important as this.

Because the jobs they do aren't that much different than in the private sector.

You don't explain how having more females equates to more males in the infantry since everyone chooses whatever military job they wish on enlisting (females are excluded from the Infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's).

Not more, but a better choice.

Those that would choose infanty would still choose infantry-you are drawing on a males only pool in any event. I fail to see how having more males to choose from for all male careers would result in less quality.

If you eliminated females, the same number of males would volunteer. Since males would have to do female jobs, that means less choice for the more demanding jobs.

Now who's laughing. I got Miller's name wrong-big deal. I've provided facts and sources to bolster my arguments. You haven't sone anything but theorize (and I've shot every single one of those down).

Nah, you're not taking into account the law of diminishing returns. You get less return the farther you go into a human resource supply. This would lead to more deaths on the battlefield.

I never claimed to have facts. I've said from the beginning that my military structure views are based on logic since I've never served and I don't feel like being an expert on something I don't have first-hand experience in. I never post on the subject and the only reason I am now is because you and Terrell insisted on getting my opinion on this subject...why, I don't know. Why is it so important to you to go through this every day with me? It's not like I'm writing articles every day going against your opinion on this? You're doing research every day. I answer your research with one-liners. You're getting the short end of the stick on the time-spent scale. lol

This hardly qualifies as a debate, this is just me smacking you around.

You spend hours doing research, I answer in 5 minutes and you're smacking me around?!

You're a glutton for punishment, but I refuse to let someone as ignorant as you have the last word on a topic as important as this.

The last word?! What am I doing to try to get the last word? I am simply stating the same thing I stated 400 posts ago, that I think filling less-demanding jobs with women frees up more a choice of men for the infantry for the front lines and therefore saves lives. That one little sentence has you that fired up? You can't take a difference of opinion?

The jobs aren't that much different? Fine, go find me an example of a civilian heavy weapons munitions handler. Jobs in the civilian sector are a part of life, military jobs are a way of life. The next time your civilain job asks you to spend 30 days out in the California desert without a shower or any bathroom that is not a hole in the ground give me a call.

If you eliminated females the military would still have to get the same number of recruits. Even if the recruiting budget for the entire military DOUBLED from $1.8 billion to $3.6 billion to get those recruits and you subtracted that extra $1.8 billion from the $2.2 billion saved from the extra health care costs spent on females you would get a net savings of $400 million (that's almost real money). That's $400 million that could be spent on extra training, better equipment, more pay-or even given back to the taxpayers.

I challenge your opinion" (that's not quite as strong a word as theories) because it's a wrong opinion. Your one wrong vote cancels out someone elses one right vote. If you were wrong on Abortion or Gun Control or any other topic I would argue with you about that. Other people read these threads to inform themselves about the issues-they need to see the difference between who is right and who is wrong.

I've spent about two hours doing research on all this (in case you didn't know-the internet is searchable). One thing you did get right: you are stating the same thing you did 400 posts ago-I've shown that you are wrong, but you cling to it.

The jobs aren't that much different? Fine, go find me an example of a civilian heavy weapons munitions handler. Jobs in the civilian sector are a part of life, military jobs are a way of life. The next time your civilain job asks you to spend 30 days out in the California desert without a shower or any bathroom that is not a hole in the ground give me a call.

I've been clear that I don't advocate women for the infantry. I specifically said "button-pushing jobs" (or their equivilant) several times.

If you eliminated females the military would still have to get the same number of recruits. Even if the recruiting budget for the entire military DOUBLED from $1.8 billion to $3.6 billion to get those recruits and you subtracted that extra $1.8 billion from the $2.2 billion saved from the extra health care costs spent on females you would get a net savings of $400 million (that's almost real money). That's $400 million that could be spent on extra training, better equipment, more pay-or even given back to the taxpayers.

According to your numbers. lol

I challenge your opinion" (that's not quite as strong a word as theories) because it's a wrong opinion. Your one wrong vote cancels out someone elses one right vote.

I've never voted for a candidate based on his views on military structure (regarding females) and I can't see it ever coming to that. I have bigger fish to fry with taxes, freedom, the second amendment, the first amendment.

If you were wrong on Abortion or Gun Control or any other topic I would argue with you about that. Other people read these threads to inform themselves about the issues-they need to see the difference between who is right and who is wrong.

And they know that I've never served and that my vote is based on logic. They will take that into consideration. I think my logic is good logic though and I'm usually right. But remember that if not for you and Terrell insisting on getting my opinion on this that I didn't want to discuss in the first place, my opinion wouldn't even be out there misleading (according to you) those poor lost souls in cyberland. lol

I've spent about two hours doing research on all this (in case you didn't know-the internet is searchable).

Yep, and I search the things I'm more hands-on in. I think there are some things that I know more about than 99.999% of the population and the reason that is is because I don't try to be an expert on everything. There's no point when I don't have hands-on experience in the world with everything.

One thing you did get right: you are stating the same thing you did 400 posts ago-I've shown that you are wrong, but you cling to it.

It's my logic. You throw numbers around but I've seen a lot of crazy people throw numbers around and those numbers end up being out of context or distorted in some way. This topic isn't of enough interest to me do go spend a couple hours seeing if your numbers jive. Even if they would jive, they still don't touch my main point that having a better choice of men for the front results in less casualties. I'll stick with what has worked well on things I don't have time to be an expert in, my logic. I think it's good logic. You keep believing what you believe about the performance of women, I'll keep believing what I believe about the law of diminishing returns and we'll both go our way and it won't make one bit of difference in the future of this nation because like I said, my vote will never come to this topic.

Good lord man-your position boils down to "well, of course I'm ignorant, but at least I'm uninformed".

Here's another clue-ALL soldiers go on field exercises, even so called "push-button" jobs (you still haven't given me an example of what that might be BTW).

I've specifically addressed your "main point" at least twice now. The number of females in the service has absolutely no bearing on how many males (or the relative quality of those males) are in the infantry or other "frontline" positions. When you join you choose the job that you like. Only males can join the infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's, and so the choices come form ONLY MALES. We might have to spend more to recruit more males to fill those "push-button" jobs, but we would save MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS on health care costs from females.

SMACK, SMACK, SMACK.

my mother cared for dying soldiers in WW2 at a TB hospital,

Actually, now that you mention it... weren't there plenty of nurses etc. in WWII and Korea that were overrun, killed, or captured, raped and tortured? Seems to me that's true. We ought to remember that PFC Lynch wasn't in a rifle company. She was a supply clerk. If it wasn't for the ongoing gender, racial, and political wars that have formed a perfect storm with Jessica as the lightning rod, it would be just one of those things. One of those bad, bad things that happen in war. I'll tell you one thing though -- there wouldn't be all the women-haters that would prefer she had been found dead than alive.

I bought the damn book. I want her to have a little bit of money. And I don't trust that iraqi lawyer either. Heck, I don't trust ANY lawyer, much less a carpet-driving one. He's made out like Ali Baba. How come nobody resents him for it? Because they're a bunch of racists who expect it from a camel jockey that's why.

Good lord man-your position boils down to "well, of course I'm ignorant, but at least I'm uninformed".

Not at all. You've presented nothing that would prove what I said wrong, that a better choice of men leads to a higher quality of men, which saves lives.

Here's another clue-ALL soldiers go on field exercises,...

So?

...even so called "push-button" jobs (you still haven't given me an example of what that might be BTW).

Fork lift driver, truck driver, cook, machine operator,...

No, but by having females do the less-demanding jobs, there are more men available to the pool to fill the more-demanding jobs. More choice leads to better men.

When you join you choose the job that you like.

OK, I join and I choose to be a general.

Only males can join the infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's, and so the choices come form ONLY MALES. We might have to spend more to recruit more males to fill those "push-button" jobs, but we would save MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS on health care costs from females.

Nah, the costs to recruitment and then the lost battles due to a less-quality of men due to less choice would wipe out those gains. Not to mention the higher casualty rate and you can't put a price on lives.

Yes-fork lift operators (called heavy equipment operators) go on field problems. Supplies have to be brought to the field and they have to be lifted off trucks (that accounts for truck drivers). Soldiers in the field have to eat so that accounts for cooks, be more specific about what type of machine operator and I'll tell you exactly how they go to the field (boy-you really showed how you weren't ignorant or uninnformed there).

You walk into a recruiter's office and you tell them what kind of job you want (not your rank-idiot). If you are a male and you want a combat position, no problem, if you want a "push-button" job-also no problem. the recruiter will tell you how long the training is, how long you have to enlist for and what bonuses are available. If you're a female the recruiter will tell you that you are ineligible for combat duty.

Regardless we are going to have as many infantrymen or artillerists are we do now, because we are already getting that number from only the males who are already coming in. They are choosing the jobs they want and aren't ineligible for whatever they choose. If they want to be a mail clerk (they go to the field too) they can as much choose to do that as be in the infantry.

Now, what you do is you take that $2.2 billion dollars that you've saved and you give everyone a $1000 raise. Then you take the $700 million (effectively adding 40% to the recruiting budget-or to put that in terms you can understand-about 40 NASCAR sponsorships) you have left and you go to those males who haven't joined and you say "We've got all these 'push-button' jobs-we've got plenty of infantry, thanks-and we're paying a lot more than we were before. I'd say that would overcome the "law of diminishing returns" you keep talking about.

Of course, since those same males who go into combat arms now are still going to be there regardless, it will not make any difference in terms of lives saved at the front if we replace the females in the "push button" jobs at the "rear", but it might save a few lives when those "push-button" types discover that they aren't always confined to the "rear".

SMACK, SMACK, SMACK.

See-your problem is that you think the "choice" about who does what job is made by the military.

But, there is no "pool" to choose from. The individual decides the job that he wants when he visits the recruiter (when he goes to MEPS really, but the choice is still his). A guy goes in and looks over his choices (he isn't ineligible for any military job so long as he meets some basic requirements-MPs have to be so tall for instance). He can say "Infantry-now that might be fun or exciting" or he can say "Water purification specialist-that sounds like one of them 'push-button' jobs-that's for me". The military then has to make do with whatever the individual decides. It's not as if an infantry officer is hiding behind a two-way mirror and says "That's a big, strapping lad. He wants to be a dental assistant, but we're going to make him become a machine gunner". The quality and quantity that you get have to come from the decisions that the individual make-not the military.

I forgot to add that I am very sorry that you were assaulted as a child. A child should never have to experience something like that.

Also, you did not choose to be assaulted. You were not prepared, and you were viscously attacked.

There's a big difference between a civilian being attacked and a military person being attacked.

I think men and women that join the military are very brave. I watched the PBS show about the Medal of Honor recipients. They went through Hell for their country, and they survived. Many of them were very wounded and going into enemy territory and saving their fellow soldiers all under enemy fire.

I pesonally think that women can handle combat if it is for a good cause, but the comments on this thread are making me rethink this issue.

I always thought women were pretty tough. I really don't know of many men that would willingly go through childbirth to have a baby, but we do all the time. Then even after know about the pain of childbirth, we still choose to have more children.

That's why I think women are strong mentally. Obviously most women are not as strong as men physically, but mentally I think women are tough.

Okay, I forgive you for your comment. As you can tell, this is still a touchy subject for me. I agree that military women are very brave and probably are trained to accept the possiblity that they may be raped if captured. But it still doesn't make it right.

I also agree with your new line of thinking - that women should not be allowed to go into combat, period. Yes, we can be emotionally very strong when called to action, as I have had to do more than once during my life, but ya know what? I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I just like being a woman, not a woman trying to act like a man. Having experienced sexual assault, I would never go into combat knowing that I could be violently raped if captured. There are plenty of other ways we, as women, can help to defend our country than to make ourselves vulnerable in this way, or to put our fellow male soldiers in greater danger by trying to protect us.

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.