Thanks to Pete for the heads up on this one.
The linked article is another account of the "rescue" of Pvt. Jessica Lynch, a U.S. soldier who was wounded in Iraq.
The story that was reported in the US media was an account of a daring rescue by US Marines that managed to save Ms. Lynch from harrowing, hostile conditions.
Bullshit. Fucking Pentagon Propaganda Bullshit.
The Iraqi doctors and staff treating this woman were terrorized by U.S. Marines. These are the doctors and staff who undertook considerable risk to themselves during their treatment of Ms. Lynch, including an incident in which an ambulance driver trying to deliver her to an American checkpoint was fired upon.
I've seen other accounts like this, on this same story, elsewhere as well. And since I know that the people who put out the false story have no concept of the word 'shame,' I'm not surprised by the lies at all. I am, however, still outraged. Not so much at the Marines, because I know shit gets confusing sometimes and you can't always determine your friends from your enemies, though some of what these particular Marines did goes beyond what is understandable, even during a war. I'm more outraged at the people who put out the false story, and the docile US media that lapped it all up.
The Iraqi doctor interviewed for the article had some nice insight into what the United States is today.
“There are two faces to Americans,” Dr Harith said. “One is freedom and democracy, and giving kids sweets. The other is killing and hating my people. So I am very confused. I feel sad because I will never see Jessica again, and I feel happy because she is happy and has gone back to her life. If I could speak to her I would say: ‘Congratulations!’”
As Americans, let's try to get back to looking more like the first face that this doctor describes.
Update: Seems that some US media are getting it right. Or partially right. In the Washington Post's case, the article reads like the newspaper is grudgingly admitting that the Lynch rescue may not have gone off exactly as the military put it.
Oh and by the way, I'm not letting Time, Newsweek and any of the cable news channels off the hook yet until they get the damn story right.
Posted by mike at April 21, 2003 07:12 PMhere's the NYtimes equivelent of this article (sorry mike, just found it after you posted):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21LYNC.html
It's terrible that anyone was frightened or abused in any way by the rescue of Pfc. Lynch, and it's terrible that she was POW so that we had to rescue her, but this was a war and you cannot expect the rescue of a POW from enemy hands to be as simple as walking in and asking for her return.
It's terrible that innocent patients and doctors were subjected to the fear of a military raid on their hospital, but the Iraqis seem more to blame for that than the US. The Iraqis frequently used civilian outposts of various sorts to protect military targets -- the US should be commended for not shooting first, asking questions later. Being tied up in a hospital for a brief period is a far less horrible experience than being shot in a raid.
I think it's important to differentiate between wartime and peacetime. Things that are unthinkable in peace are commonplace during war and the US has made incredible progress toward limiting the horror of war. In the context of peace, the raid on the hospital was horrible. In the context of war, it was as well executed with as positive a result as you could hope.
It's easy to judge the event harshly, ex post facto, because we now know that there weren't militia or munitions in the hospital. But that is no justification for going into a very risky mission unprepared for what were some very real possibilities.
The Pentagon may not offer every angle and every detail of the operation, but this hardly seems like a case of deliberate misinformation. They were understandably elated at the rescue of an American POW -- as you know, the first female ever and the first rescue since WWII -- and looked at it in the context of battle, which makes it as amazing a story as any.
Posted by: Alissa on April 22, 2003 09:18 AM“The Iraqis frequently used civilian outposts of various sorts to protect military targets -- the US should be commended for not shooting first, asking questions later.”
The Iraqi militia is not to blame; such cases though present at the start and middle of the war, are not rampant. Sniper-like combat was not implemented by the Republican Guard, but rather by organized militias. I honestly feel that our militias (particularly the ones in Michigan) would not act any different than the Iraqi militias if the United States was attacked and occupied by ground troops of a foreign nation. The Pentagon put a political spin on these Iraqi militia’s, making the public believe that these tactics were employed by Iraqi military (of which we have yet to have any substantial evidence that this is the case).
“…but this was a war and you cannot expect the rescue of a POW from enemy hands to be as simple as walking in and asking for her return.”
You can expect an educated response by the military. An regardless of how the military acted, why is it that the Pentagon claimed that Lynch was rescued by the claws of evil rather than just stating that “we found her in a hospital, she was pretty well taken care of”?
“They were understandably elated at the rescue of an American POW -- as you know, the first female ever and the first rescue since WWII -- and looked at it in the context of battle, which makes it as amazing a story as any.”
There should be no elation during times of war, being so is sick (though that’s just my opinion and is not meant to be a real argument). Lynch’s rescue was not one of possible harm (yet the pentagon reported it that way) and with other POW rescues, the same was the case. Of Three or four military grounds crew members that were also rescued a couple of week ago, none of them reported cases of misconduct by the Iraqi military personnel. In fact they received three meals a day (more than most Iraqi civilians) and medical treatment. During their detainment, the Pentagon claimed that these POW’s were in great danger, may even be tortured…
Again, I’m rambling.
What I’m trying to say is that through the media, the Pentagon has been pushing the idea of an evil Regime and evil people, and too keep that image up (particularly with the people of Iraq) the Pentagon has been telling lies and making assumptions. There is NO correlation between how the Pentagon claimed Lynch was rescued and how she actually was rescued. So far the treatment of American POW’s in Iraq seems to far outpace the treatment of American currently being held in Cuba.
Pete:
“Such cases though present at the start and middle of the war, are not rampant.”
Whether assaults are or aren’t rampant is irrelevant – the question that matters is whether the US Marine Corps had a reasonable expectation of fedayeen fighters guarding Pfc. Lynch.
“Sniper-like combat was not implemented by the Republican Guard, but rather by organized militias. ... The Pentagon put a political spin on these Iraqi militias, making the public believe that these tactics were employed by Iraqi military...”
I haven’t seen any indication that the Pentagon equates militias with regulars. People certainly confuse the two, but I don’t think the Pentagon is at fault for that. Wars are confusing, especially in places like Iraq, where we don’t have a particularly robust mutual cultural and social history to draw on to understand what’s happening there.
“And regardless of how the military acted, why is it that the Pentagon claimed that Lynch was rescued by the claws of evil rather than just stating that “we found her in a hospital, she was pretty well taken care of”?”
Lynch was rescued from the claws of evil. I think you’re being a devil’s advocate here, but the enemy was Iraq and Iraq held her as a POW. There are laws and conventions that govern how POWs are to be treated and it looks like she was treated in accordance with those regulations. That’s to be expected, and also commended, but it doesn’t negate the reality of one of our soldiers being held as a prisoner of war. We didn’t lose her; she was captured by the enemy. I think it’s again important to point out the difference between wartime and peacetime, and note that this happened during a war. As you pointed out yourself, many of her comrades were killed by the Iraqis – that itself should be evidence enough that she was captured by evil hands.
“There should be no elation during times of war, being so is sick.”
There’s nothing joyful about war, of course, but that doesn’t mean that one can’t be glad of a little reprieve from the horror of it. It’s tragic that so many American soldiers died, but that tragedy doesn’t lessen the joy of bringing home a live soldier from a very desperate situation. It may not have been the most desperate situation possible, but it was pretty terrible for her.
“In fact they received three meals a day (more than most Iraqi civilians) and medical treatment. During their detainment, the Pentagon claimed that these POW’s were in great danger, may even be tortured…”
A positive result doesn’t negate the importance of caution. There was absolutely no reason to assume that Lynch was being handled with kid gloves at the time. Again, her comrades all died, some POWs ended up in ditches, her bloodstained uniform was found with her nowhere in sight. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that she was, in fact, in grave danger.
“...through the media, the Pentagon has been pushing the idea of an evil Regime and evil people, and to keep that image up ... the Pentagon has been telling lies and making assumptions. There is NO correlation between how the Pentagon claimed Lynch was rescued and how she actually was rescued.”
No one at the Pentagon has ever implied at the people of Iraq are evil, and they have even been explicit in saying that the Iraqi people are our friends. We are fighting this war for them. The regime was evil, and that’s pretty universally agreed. You may disagree with the tactics and strategy employed by the US military to achieve its objectives (including the rescue of Pfc. Lynch), but there clearly was a strong correlation between the published reports and the Pentagon’s version.
Why are people so quick to assume malicious or misleading motives of the Pentagon? I don’t mean that rhetorically, either. I know that it has a history of pursuing morally ambiguous objectives, but that is the job of the military – it’s dirty work, but it needs to be done. The nature of the job requires some secrecy, and I know that it goes against the natural inclination of Americans to permit that, but if we immediately revealed all national security and military intelligence, then we’d lose a lot more soldiers and be much less effective in promoting liberty here and in Iraq. I know I’m opening myself up for a lot of fire here, because the Pentagon is not the most loved government agency, but I don’t understand the knee-jerk assumptions about its motives.
Ben-
I'll fucking tone it down if I feel like toning it down.
Posted by: Mike on April 22, 2003 09:14 PMThat's your right, but what are you trying to accomplish by taking such an abrasive tone?
Posted by: Ben on April 22, 2003 11:15 PM