At the time, she was suffering from a head injury, a broken leg and arm, a bullet wound to her leg, a pulmonary oedema and her breathing was failing. In a hospital inundated with war casualties with few drugs, her condition was stabilised and she regained consciousness.
"She was very frightened when she woke up," Dr Harith, 24, a junior resident at the hospital, said. "She kept saying: 'Please don't hurt me, don't touch me.' I told her that she was safe, she was in a hospital and that I was a doctor, and I never hurt a patient."
Private Lynch's military guards would allow no other doctor to tend to her and Dr Harith formed a friendship with her. She talked to him about her family, including her arguments about money with her father, and about her boyfriend, a Hispanic soldier named Ruben.
Dr Harith went outside the hospital during the bombing to get supplies of Private Lynch's favourite drink, orange juice, and struggled to persuade her to eat.
"I told her she needed to eat to recover, and I brought her crackers, but her stomach was upset. She said as a joke: 'I want to be slim.'"
"I see (many) patients, but she was special. She's a very simple person, a soldier, not well-educated. But she was very, very nice, with a lovely face and blonde hair."
Oh, and then he hooked her up to a car battery and electrocuted the shit out of her. Oh wait, no he didn't.
- The Iraqi intelligence officers told the hospital that Private Lynch would soon be transferred to Baghdad, a prospect that terrified her.
After her condition stabilised, they ordered Dr Harith to transfer Jessica to another hospital.
Instead he told the ambulance driver to deliver her to one of the American outposts that had already been established on the ouskirts of the city.
"But when he reached their checkpoint, the Americans fired at him," he said.
On April 1 the local Baathists fled al-Nasiriyah for Baghdad and arrived at the hospital looking for their prize captive. Dr Harith moved her to another part of the hospital, and other doctors told the soldiers that he was away.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Al Barger
Well now Brian, we're back to what seems to be the first question one almost always needs to ask with you: Why do you hate America so much? You are absolutely determined to shit on every bit of any achievement. What the hell is wrong with you?
So the gist is, according to this version of the story, the US soldiers came in to rescue Lynch. They came loaded for bear, but the bears had fled. Does that take away from their courage coming in? I think not.
When they came into the hospital, this story says that they essentially suspected everybody, and were aggressive in interrogating and searching the area where they were rescuing a POW. Duh! They would have been stupid not to. They didn't entirely know what kind of situation they were running up into.
How awful that US troops act suspicious of someone in the middle of a war zone. He had a stethoscope on, for crying out loud. He couldn't possibly be an Iraqi soldier with a prop. It's not like Hussein's Palestenian buddies go around loading bombs and terrorists into Red Crescent ambulances. Oh wait, they do exactly that.
I don't recall any reports saying that our troops had gun battles in the hospital. Nothing wrong was said that I can see. I suppose you want to insist that everyone should have made a point in reporting the story to emphasize that the scene didn't turn out to be as dangerous as the soldiers had every reason to fear it might be before they went in. Just make sure to shit on their achievement someway, anyway.
A doctor got inconvenienced for a couple of days? Sorry. Our bad. Tore up your fancy therapeutic bed? Sorry. We'll buy you a couple more to replace it- and a whole bunch of other supplies as well.
Finally, Brian, after this carefully spun display of disrespect, I don't want to hear you pretending that you support our troops at all. You're not simply disagreeing with administration policy, but looking for any possible chance to tear down every action of any US soldiers that you possibly can.
What the hell is wrong with you anyway?
2 - Brian Flemming
It was a critique of the U.S. media, Al.
The U.S. media is not "America."
"Inconvenienced?"
Is that what you would call it if a group of armed men captured you, held you for three days and returned you a different color?
I guess Elizabeth Smart was just "inconvenienced" for a few months, eh?
For that matter, I guess Jessica Lynch was merely "inconvenienced." Why do you hate Jessica Lynch so much? (Sorry--accidentally drifted into Al World.)
By the way, thanks for the kind words about the doctor who saved Private Lynch's life. And the ambulance driver who got shot at trying to return her. And the other doctors who risked their lives by lying to the Iraqi soldiers who wanted to take Lynch to Baghdad. All for an American they'd never met before in their lives.
It's nice to see that you recognize courage wherever you see it, even in those Iraqi "rats," as you call them.
3 - Al Barger
Now you are purposely and consciously slandering me. Specifically, you are presenting it that I would brand Iraqis in general as "rats", setting me up as a genocidal racist. You know better than that when you say it.
And yes, there were a lot of Baath party, Fedayeen, Republican Guards and other nasty little rats in bad need of extermination. I think we've got them thinned out a bit.
Perhaps these Iraqi doctors and ambulance drivers will have great stories to tell as the dust settles. I'll be interested in hearing some of that stuff. I said nothing to take anything away from them.
You, however, were not mostly expressing praise for unsung heroes. You were mostly knocking down Americans.
You can say that it was a critique of the media, but it was just as much a slap at the soldiers, describing the scene as a "PR stunt."
4 - san
When faced with the truth, I expect the US government will employ what I have come to know as the "Russian diplomatic convoy" statement: "It's not true It's not true. It's not true. How dare you believe such a thing. It's not true. [Proof arrives.] Okay, it's true. It was us, but it was all the Iraqis' fault."
Al: As far as supporting our troops, I don't know about Brian, but for my part, let's assume this story from the Times is factual. Troops that participate in faked operations intended to provide a false perspective to the American public and the world? Troops that by their participation in these operations endangered the life of a POW far more than necessary for the sake of some good footage? No, Al, I don't support those troops. There's a point, regardless of orders, where you have to stand up and refuse to participate in unethical behavior. Assume that until they "assaulted" the hospital for the "rescue" mission these troops were as fooled by command as everyone else: Well, now is the time to speak out and tell the truth.
5 - Outlandish Josh
And yes, there were a lot of Baath party, Fedayeen, Republican Guards and other nasty little rats in bad need of extermination.
This shows a disturbing lack of respect for the rule of law and/or judicial proceedings. Unless Ba'ath/Fedayeen/RG are KIA (unlikely now that major hostilties have ceased) guilty parties should be subjected to public trial for any crimes can be made to stick. This is not only a good way to get the very bad people, but also a good way to help a society move forward out of a period of very ugly behavior (c.f. the South Africa Truth/Reconciliation process).
Anything less runs the risk of advocating for Stalinist purges. Generally speaking, you're on a slippery moral slope as soon as you start de-humanizing your enemies as "rats" or anything else. If you try to keep your rhetorical above the comic-book level, you may find yourself more persuasive and morally grounded.
Just my $0.02
6 - pericat
The doctor in Germany who treated her said she had a broken back. Was it broken during the 'rescue', or before?
7 - Concerned
The mainstream U.S. media is a joke now, in my opinion. There's not even a pretense of objectivity, and it's getting to the point where I am no longer able to distinguish between ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC (the so-called "liberal" media outlets) and Fox News. Their hidden agenda--actually, it's not even hidden any more--is one and the same: Paint the U.S. in a positive light even if you have to lie or squelch the truth.
I used to believe strongly that the U.S. media was an effective watchdog and an integral part of American democracy. Now I am completely disenchanted and skeptical. On several different occasions during the build-up to this war (and during the war itself) the government either lied to the American people directly or misled them, and the media effectively responded with a shrug. Where's the outrage? The government lied to us to promote this war and nobody cares!!?? What happened to the muckrakers and crusaders of the 1970s like Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward? (Oh yeah, Woodward wrote a gushing tribute to President Bush, that's right.)
The U.S. media has a great responsibility because they have such an enormous influence over the American public. Not everyone has the time to scour the internet to discover the truth behind the government's lies, so they rely on the mainstream journalists to do it for them. If they don't, or if the truth is buried underneath an advertisement on page 24, then it's easy to understand why the public believes that several of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq.
All of this makes me wonder who's to blame. Do the Republican oligarchs who own all of the newspapers, radio stations, and television networks order their journalists to toe the party line, or else? Or is it because journalists are intimidated and they know that they will be excoriated by the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages of the world if they dare question any of the propaganda handed down to them by the Pentagon?
8 - san
I would hazard that in the realm of television news it's largely about ratings and advertising revenues. If your journalists express views or promote analysis that will turn off large numbers of viewers and scare away advertisers, then you get rid of them. Out of fear of being fired, the journalists toe the line -- the line established by the majority of public opinion -- don't question, and report what they feel is safe to report. After all, if they are fired from one outlet effectively controlled by its advertisers, how can they expect to get another job working for another major outlet, since all of them are driven by their advertising revenue?
Unfortunately, by tolerating this the American majority is essentially saying that they would rather be lied to than be presented with the most objective reporting and allowed to form their own opinions. I think the "liberal bias" in the media was just a ghost, but apparently it was a ghost that scared the hell out of the major networks.
9 - rob
"All of this makes me wonder who's to blame. Do the Republican oligarchs who own all of the newspapers, radio stations, and television networks order their journalists to toe the party line, or else? Or is it because journalists are intimidated and they know that they will be excoriated by the Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages of the world if they dare question any of the propaganda handed down to them by the Pentagon? "
Did you read Eason Jordan' admission that he suppressed news stories about Hussein in order to stay in Iraq? Why do you point at some talking heads from the right (idiots in my book, BTW) but not bring up an obvious case like this?
Present the US in the best possible light, why then are they showing footage of Marines firing up cars that run checkpoints in Baghdad?
10 - Concerned
Rob and san:
You both make good points. Thanks for the input.
11 - Brian Flemming
I don't have cable, and I haven't watched any TV since the start of the war. But yesterday I passed by a TV in public that was tuned to one of the cable news channels.
There was no sound on. But emblazoned accross the middle of the screen were the words
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
I just laughed out loud when I saw it. The graphic wasn't accompanying an editorial--it was just the headline they were using to label the news.
And yet--it was clearly an editorial comment. The TV channel was endorsing one particular view of the war--the view held by the U.S. government, and a view NOT held by the majority of people on Earth, or possibly even a majority of people in the U.S.
But there it was: OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The TV channel was telling its audience how to interpret the war.
It wasn't:
OPERATION SECURE THE OIL
OPERATION FIND THE WMD
OPERATION REMAKE THE MIDDLE EAST
OPERATION CHRISTIANITY
OPERATION DISTRACT THE U.S. PUBLIC
If you took a poll, all of the above points of view would register significant numbers--they are all legitimate perspectives on what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq.
I know that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is the name the U.S. military has given to their own operation, but that hardly provides a good reason for the TV channels to adopt it as their title for the war.
If the KKK held a march and called it Operation Cleanse The Nation, I doubt that is what would be emblazoned across the screen during the TV new story about it. (Maybe, just maybe, it would be in ironic "quotes.") It would be KKK Marches Downtown or something like that.
If McDonalds announced a new policy toward the treatment of animals at its meat suppliers, and its publicity department called this policy Operation McDonalds Kindness, I don't think this would be the headline on TV.
How to explain
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM
being used as that TV channel's official position on the war?
12 - Joe
A search of google news for the term Lynch Rescue will return 6,800. I'm sure there's a version where PFC Lynch actually carried the SOF troops out of the hospital. The truth probably lies somewhere in between the different versions presented. Why would the Times be immune to the same perceived biases (left or right) as the US media?
13 - SlackMFer
let's see, the guy who came to us and told us where she was (we didn't shoot him, by the way) said that he saw her be being slapped around. he was an iraqi, and i doubt cared about US p.r. so with this info, why should we have expected to walk in and find her being treated SO doggonit well???
14 - san
Joe, this report from the Times, and other new reports, are the first products of broad scope reporting done outside the confines of the embedding system. The US military no longer has control of what the journalists are reporting, and the stories are starting to change. Outside the States, that is. With some few exceptions, outlets in the States continue to march along the party line.
The Times is a UK syndicate and the UK is part of the coalition. If anything, the Times would be more likely to exhibit a prowar bias, supporting coalition activities. Additionally, these hospital staffers are apparently available for interview. Why isn't CNN or MSNBC talking to them?
15 - Joe
San-
Agreed, it was more or less a rhetorical question. Perhaps, my point is that it is often more convenient to believe the story that supports your point of view than to do the mental heavy lifting required of critical thought.
16 - Bill Brandon
Look, wars stink, especially if you happen to be caught in the middle of one. Terrible things happen during them, to the just, the innocent, and the good as well as to the evil and malicious. Young people, 18 to 25 years old, sometimes younger, get assigned to do things that they have never done before, are afraid while they're doing, and want to finish just as fast as they can. Sometimes people shoot at them when they least expect it, and the prospect of coming home in a body bag tends to make young soldiers do things to avoid that prospect, things they would in no way do if it were a normal day. Add to that running on adrenaline and not enough sleep, and you bet they are not going to treat doctors, nurses, administrators, or hospital equipment with much respect at all. If you haven't been there and done that, you aren't going to have a clue what I'm talking about.
I do think that we have seen some pretty admirable, even heroic, conduct by some Iraqui civilians. That would particularly include the doctor who took care of Pvt. Lynch. Am I happy about what happened to him and his colleagues? Of course not. Do I understand how it happened? You bet. Do I think the doctor is lucky to be alive and out from under Sadam Hussein? Dern tootin'. Will he get over it? I don't know, and I don't care. I do know that he is perceptive enough, to judge by what he said, to understand the ambivalence of the situation. Which is more than I can say about some of the posters here.
In my opinion, anyone who watched the media reports and LOOKED AT THE PICTURES, not just listened to the voiceover from the reporters, and applied a little empathy and understanding would have known what it must have been like to have been hospital staff on duty that night. It really isn't the media's fault if there are people too dim to say to themselves, "Hey, that place looks just like our local community hospital - wonder what that was like to have a S.E.A.L. team rolling through the halls, ready to kill, on your 11 to 7 shift?" My first thought watching the video from the helmet cams was about the hospital staff: "Those poor bastards. I hope they kept their heads down." Now I know that they did, which is a good thing to know.
17 - Brian Flemming
Hey, does anybody disagree with my predictions? I made four.
18 - KMBeilke
I think honestly everyone needs to drop a little bit of the cynicism about this whole event. Yes, the media and the "government" have their own agendas deep down, but I think they are honestly doing the best they can. The media isn't trying to supress for advertisers or ratings, they just don't have the information. The assualt was fine, they went in a returned a POW to our ranks. They didn't know what to expect exactly, and they took the necessary precautions to ensure their and PFC Lynch's overall safety. Just remember 20/20 hindsight is a dangerous thing, don't jump to such cynical conclusions.
The military isn't just an evil monster trying to justify their every action with PR games, they are trying their best to do their best and not get killed in the process. It is war and not everyone can be treated fairly, even if they are doctors. We maybe were harsh on the Iraqi doctors, and they were helpful and brave, but the rescure's still had every right to suspect them and they did what they had to do to ensure their overall safety in the mission. Look how far we have come since WWII and Vietnam, civilian casualties are probably the lowest ever for the amount accomplished.
Anyways I'm rambling by now...
19 - KMBeilke
Wow, Bill Brandon said exactly what I ment to say but much better I think. Read what he said as an addition to my points! Thanks Bill
20 - Joe
Brian-
Yes.
21 - san
Joe: True, many people prefer to eat what they are fed instead of thinking for themselves. But, right now there is a dearth of good information about Iraq in big American media. The government has quite well proven they can't be trusted to be honest with reports of this war and the American media is following the government's lead. Who do we trust? Absolutely trust, no one. But foreign media has so far proven itself a better, more balanced source of information on which to perform "mental heavy lifting".
Slack: What Iraqi informant? You mean the Saudi Arabian guy from New Jersey? See my point: You have no idea whether or not the US government is telling the truth.
Bill: If the story is accurate, returning a guy with a markedly different skin color than when he left is outside the bounds of a little reckless treatment due to fatigue, etc. What concerns me more is that the whole rescue may have been a put-up job, a Tom Clancy photo op. Why, why, that sounds like something Saddam's old regime might get up to.
22 - SlackMFer
san,
keep believing everything that forign media tells you, THEY'RE certainly not biased against us. and i'm sick of the fucking liberals putting "big" in front of everything to make it sound evil. oooohhh, BIG american media, i'm scared shitless. is it as bad as big tobacco, which, of course, FORCES people to smoke so that they have no personal responsibility when they get cancer. i'm off on antoher point now so....
23 - san
Slack: Actually, I've been paying closest attention to U.K. media; last I checked, the U.K. was part of the "coalition of the willing" and second only to the U.S. in military contribution to the Iraq war. So where would their bias lie?
And I used the term "big" to mean, well, "big", as opposed to small outlets, and independent newspapers and magazines. I certainly didn't use the word in an attempt to scare you shitless, though I'll admit I find that prospect rather agreeable.
Mind you, people like you keep using phrases like "President Bush" trying to scare people like me shitless. Guess what? It's working.
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ!
24 - SlackMFer
yeah, big means big. it's funny though, if someone's talking about, say, home depot, they don't call it "big hardware." though by your definition, they would. you know, to differentiate between that and, say, a mom and pop hardware store. "big" is only used when trying to make some iundustry seem like the boogyman. (i.e. big tobacco, big oil, et cetera...)
what would the UK media have against us?? let's see, the media is not run by tony blair, you know. british people don't like our government very much (just look at radiohead's new album "hail to the thief" [do they, as non-american's, really need to make some commentary on OUR government?])
oh, and the president bush thing was really funny. i can't wait to see all of you when he gets re-elected.
25 - Mark
Howdy Folks,
It seems a lot of posts here are arguing whether the "rescue" of Private Lynch was a PR hoax or not. And certainly, if we believe the post from Brian Flemming, according to the London Times, we have all been huckstered. But one newspaper article does not make the truth, and Brian, why should I believe you anyway? You have to admit, anyone who would write "Bat Boy/The Musical" based on that wonderful story from Weekly World News, or a full-length "documentary" on the assassination of Bill Gates, should be taken with a grain of salt, and kept at arm's length. But to your credit, it does show remarkable innovation. I am anxiously awaiting your remake of Beach Blanket Bingo. I hope you can get Annette for the starring role. I encourage everyone to check out your website:
http://www.slumdance.com/brian_flemming/
That's what you wanted, right?
Have fun,
Mark