The killing fields

The killing fields
: Stuart Hughes marks the 25th anniversary of Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia to end the genocidal and insane rule of the Khmer Rouge. Says Stuart:

A quarter of a century on, those responsible for that dark and bloody period in Cambodia’s history still have not paid for their crimes.

Many of the Khmer Rouge leaders have already died — at peace and at liberty. Those still alive are advancing in years.

At last there are signs of some sort of justice for the estimated 1.7 million Cambodians murdered under Pol Pot’s tyranny in the form of a UN sponsored tribunal.

But any convictions that follow will be too little, too late.

: I was a columnist in San Francisco then and the paper decided to make the plight of Cambodian refugees its cause. Papers are often good at that, if only in short spurts of mass sympathy. I wrote columns about it. We helped run a benefit concert with Linda Ronstadt (who was decent to me even if I had gossiped in print about her and Jerry Brown) and Joan Baez (who, you’d be surprised, has a wonderfully dark and nasty sense of humor). I went and met refugee familes who had no money and no education and no ties who suddenly landed in tiny San Francisco apartments that had nothing in common with their farms at home. The woman who took me and brought this issue to our attention was one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met, Mu Sochua. Back then, she fought for the lives of refugees and hoped to one day return home, though she presumed that her father (once head of Cambodia’s airline) and mother were long dead.

I’ve thought of her often over these years and only recently looked her up on the Internet to find that she is now a minister of the Cambodian government.

And now I think of her in the context of Iraq, which suffered its brutal and insane government, which had its mass graves, which is just now trying to bring justice where injustice ruled, which is grappling with ongoing violence, which is just now starting to rebuild. Twenty-five years later, Cambodia is still going through so much of that, finding justice, rebuilding, healing.

It will take time for Iraq. It will take time for Afghanistan. But they are all so much better off today.

How could we in good conscience let the Khmer Rouge rule? How could we in good conscience have continued to let Saddam rule? And yes, how could we in any conscience have ever dealt with any of them? But how can we not help them rebuild? How can we not be patient when they are patient?

14 responses to “The killing fields”

  1. Charlie Avatar

    Well said, Jeff.
    Would it be just awful of me to point out that Cambodia fell to Communist rule more or less as the “discredited” domino theory predicted? Or that Viet Nam made their own significant contribution to the “killing fields” when they tossed out the Red Khmer?
    The point? Not that the “must defend South Viet Nam” side of the argument was right (figure out what you think for yourself) but that the real enemy is fascism, oppressive coersive governments oof any stripe, and that the truly “liberal” fight is to free everyone from coersion and oppression by other people.

  2. Dann Avatar

    Charlie-
    Well put. Although I would say that by your definition, our defense of South Viet Nam was a truly “liberal” fight. Over 600,000 people were killed by the communists in Viet Nam in the decade following our withdrawl. Not quite in the league of the Khmer Rouge, but in the league of Saddam Hussein.
    It is my fervent hope that every Viet Nam vet understands that their efforts were not wasted. The justification for of their presence was made as soon as we left; over 2 million people butchered by communists in the region after we left.
    And if not for our efforts in southeast asia, the Soviet Union would have been able to begin their infiltration of Central America 15 years sooner.
    -Regards

  3. Dean Avatar

    Several thoughts:
    Lee Kuan Yew, former head of Singapore, once observed that Vietnam was “the right war, in the right place, at the right time.” His thesis was that the political structures in Southeast Asia in the mid-1960s were extraordinarily weak, backed by primitive economies. The Vietnam War (and associated spending, political support, etc.) bought time for those polities and economies to expand and mature, so that they could, in turn, better resist Communist efforts at subversion. Thus, while Cambodia (and Laos) fell, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore did not.
    It’s also worth noting that Hun Sen, installed by the Vietnamese after they toppled Pol Pot, was himself a member of the Khmer Rouge. And while his reign has not been quite as bloody as that of the KRs, it’s mostly a matter of degree.
    Also, the US, while it supported keeping the KRs in the UN, in fact backed Lon Nol and Prince Sihanouk, the two least oppressive (but also weakest) factions of those in post-’78 Cambodia. We actually did very little to back the KRs (other than to allow them to retain their UN seat); most of the military/economic support for them came from the PRC.

  4. Charlie Avatar

    I’m sorry, Dann, I didn’t mean to give the impression that I didn’t think the Viet Nam war was a “liberal fight” by my definition.
    Whatever reasons there may have been to oppose it — and I wasn’t exactly thrilled about it myself — I think what we saw afterwards tells us that we were wrong.

  5. Dann Avatar

    Charlie-
    My comments were motivated more by the use of the term “liberal” than by any impressions that you gave.
    “Wrong” in what way??
    -Regards

  6. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    It’s bleakly entertaining to see Vietnam going through a rehabilitation. But then, when you’re trying to defend the current war — and the way it’s being implemented — as an Obvious Good, then of course ‘Nam would have to start looking in retrospect like a noble struggle instead of a pointless mire whose objectives were unachievable short of genocide. In an age of the rampant misuse of historical analogy, here’s yet another point in favour of there being something solid in seeing an analogy between these two wars.
    And then of course, it’s time to dust off the old mendacities and step back through the looking glass. Cambodia fell “according to the Domino theory,” and not because Nixon and Kissinger bombed it to within an inch of its life and made Pol Pot’s marginal movement popular among the Khmer virtually overnight. And it’s obvious that it was worth the lives of a million-odd Vietnamese peasants, because the prime minister of Singapore tells us so! (Nicely glossing over a troubling contradiction — which is that we’re responding to a post celebrating the *Vietnamese Communist* ouster of Pol Pot.)
    How pitiful it all looks, how self-serving, how puerile, and how petty.
    And how sloppy. Because however nasty Saddam and the Taliban were, it’s simply a fool who pretends they were the equivalent of Pol Pot. And it’s a fool who pretends the jury isn’t still out on whether the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were worth it. And it’s a fool who insulates himself from the possibility of criticism from those unhappy lands by wreathing present-day policies in false historical analogies.

  7. Dean Avatar

    Doctor Slack:
    Have you ever heard of the Ho Chi Minh trail?
    Where did that trail run?
    FYI: It ran through Cambodia.
    So, a major (if not THE major) supply line of the VC runs through Cambodia. (BTW, it’s also how North Vietnamese Army units were routed into South Vietnam.)
    And the Cambodians fail to stop it or shut it down. So, by trying to stop it, this makes Nixon and Kissinger responsible for the resulting rise of the Khmer Rouge.
    Why is it that whenever a hoary old Lefty reminisces about the good ol’ “Bad War” and Cambodia, they always seem to forget that little role the North Vietnamese had to do w/ all that?
    Oh, and citing the PM of Singapore is irrelevant. Never mind that he was out there. And notice that I never said that it made the deaths of millions of Vietnamese worthwhile. (A goodly portion of which, btw, who died at the hands of the North Vietnamese after they came to power. Whatever happened to the NLF?) But it DOES provide an alternative perspective. You know, one of those things that revisionists always valued, an alternative perspective to the hegemonic one?
    But, hey, I’m sure you’re one who DOES believe that the deaths of a few hundred thousand boat people WAS worthwhile in order to build the new Vietnam, eh? Or, like the kulaks, did they simply die b/c of bad weather? Or, most true of all to your ilk, did they simply deserve to die?
    But, perhaps this will clarify one’s position:
    I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this

  8. Dann Avatar

    Doctor Slack-
    I have long held Viet Nam vets in high regard and appreciated their service. Rehabilitation of our efforts in SE Asia would not be necessary if those efforts had not be fallaciously denigrated in the first place. There never were any “peace loving communists” in charge of Viet Nam or any other communist nation.
    While it may be foolish to compare Saddam with Pol Pot, it is worthwhile to compare the body count in Iraq under Saddam to that experienced in Viet Nam after we withdrew. Roughly 600,000 dead in each country at the hands of their respective socialist/communist governments.
    Indeed the jury is still out on a number of our foreign policy efforts. History judges such things for decades and centuries. Thus being a student of history for the purpose of evaluating future foreign policy is appropriate.
    History may yet judge our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to be in vain. Such a judgement will be based on our inability to transform those nations after the end of major combat operations, not on any theoretic morally redeeming attributes of their former governments.
    It is the fool that fails to consider all of the arguments for an against any particular initiative. IMO, those who continue to denigrate our efforts in SE Asia are casually dismissive of the lives lost to the communists that took charge upon our departure. Unsurprisingly, such people maintain a similar attitude towards the victims of the Taliban and the Ba’athists as well.
    -Regards

  9. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    “And notice that I never said that it made the deaths of millions of Vietnamese worthwhile.”
    No, you’ll just settle for implying it when someone dares to criticize that horrific sacrifice, which is your cue to go into a dishonest “oh, you Evil Stalinists and your ilk” riff and imply that anyone who questions that policy is responsible for the actions of the NVA and (even worse!) a Chomsky-lover.
    You can play that game with yourself; you won’t be playing it with me.
    “Oh, and citing the PM of Singapore is irrelevant. Never mind that he was out there.”
    His being “out there” does not make him a soothsayer on the Domino Effect, nor does it mean that his words should be accepted at face value. Thailand, for example, seems to have dealt just fine with geopolitical realities that saw Pol Pot’s unlikely rise to power on their doorstep, and a later Vietnamese occupation there. Singapore, for its part, had been part of Malaya during the defeat of an unpopular communist insurgency there from ’48 to ’60 — why was it supposed to be more vulnerable to communism after this? I don’t buy it.
    “So, by trying to stop it, this makes Nixon and Kissinger responsible for the resulting rise of the Khmer Rouge.”
    Well, yes. Given that the rise of the Khmer Rouge could not have happened (or was at minimum highly unlikely) without their actions, NVA or no NVA, they most certainly were disproportionately responsible for making possible the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
    That’s not to say that, once you were committed to staying in Vietnam, you could afford to ignore what was happening in Cambodia. So again, it comes down to: was it worth it? In order to “protect” Vietnam from communism (which couldn’t be done short of terminating most of Vietnam’s populace), you had to engage in actions which favoured the rise of communism — and not just that, but one of communism’s allt-ime most horrific manifestations — in a neighbouring state. This would have been true even if a better solution than that horrific carpet-bombing had been favoured. The Domino Effect prophecy had to be fulfilled by American actions which brought to power a regime that slaughtered over two million Cambodians.
    Much as you might want to contort yourself into arguing that that constitutes good policy, I don’t think you’ll find too many takers. And there again is a haunting analogy with the Iraq situation. Because of course, now that you’re in Iraq, a similar logic (but hopefully not a similar outcome) applies. The Middle East is a theatre, with porous borders and influential groups in neighbouring states who have a vested interest in fighting you and are in fact doing so. If you’re serious about staying there, the neocon logic about how far in you have to go is at least partly compelling: you either need to go all the way in, or get all the way out.
    So: is it worth it? Can you reform the region at the point of a gun without having to kill most of its inhabitants? Or is the likelier result just another extended bloodbath that leaves the region worse off and American honour in tatters?
    I’d love to see some pro-war commentary that seriously considered these questions, instead of just parroting the latest GOP spin or engaging in glib Bush partisanship. But that was very thin on the ground leading up to the war, and it’s getting thinner all the time.

  10. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    ‘There never were any “peace loving communists” in charge of Viet Nam or any other communist nation.’
    A strawman that leads me to question your credibility as a critic of the “fallacious denigration” of any military effort. And I’m amused by your sneaky attempt to imply that I don’t respect Vietnam vets. Not.
    “History may yet judge our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to be in vain. Such a judgement will be based on our inability to transform those nations after the end of major combat operations,”
    And on how many people die there while you’re exploring that inability.
    “not on any theoretic morally redeeming attributes of their former governments.”
    Ahh, the strawman again! Why am I not surprised.

  11. Charlie Avatar

    Dann — I think we probably agree completely, but we’re not used enough to having that happen. What I meant was that I think that there were a number of reasons proposed why the Viet Nam was was wrong at root (not just wrongly prosecuted, which I’d still argue) that just no longer make sense. Among those I’d include
    “undeclared war” (I think the Gulf of of Tonkin Resolution qualifies, based on legal discussions that came up about Iraq), and
    “no US interest” (beyond an interest in national “honor”, which in this context means a willingness to do what we promised, we did have an interest in preventing the dominos’ fall, and the fall of Cambodia and Laos show we were right to).
    As far as “Dr Slack”‘s comments, I’d simply point out that there is not a single example I’m aware of in which a Communist takeover wasn’t followed by the ritual sacrifice by purge of immense numbers of innocents. The Khmer Rouge didn’t invent the idea, and — compared, say, to Stalin — weren’t all that unusual.

  12. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    I’d simply point out that there is not a single example I’m aware of in which a Communist takeover wasn’t followed by the ritual sacrifice by purge of immense numbers of innocents.
    I have no idea which part of my comments this is supposed to be a response to. If you’re still trying to make excuses for the ‘Nam war or are trying to imply that I favour Ho Chi Minh, it will have perhaps dawned on you that this isn’t my point. My point is that given a choice between a) a communist bloodbath, b) an extended American bloodbath and then a communist one, or c) complete genocide (which was all the evidence suggests was the real alternative to a) or b)), no-one should be pretending to themselves that the Vietnam War was the noble and logical choice. And certainly no-one should be pretending that acknowledging that implies disrespect for the soldiers who were asked to fight it.
    That’s the kind of complicated calculus you face today. It’s shitty, no doubt about it, but there it is. Perhaps it will surprise you, but I don’t blame many of the hawks who have been signed up to the current adventures on the humanitarian rationale. I have no time, however, for the echo chamber of glib simplicity by which too many of these are trying to convince themselves that theirs is the Obvious Choice and everyone else must be a traitor or a fool.
    And if you’re trying to deny that Pol Pot was one the nastiest manifestations of communism ever to occur, I simply have to laugh to keep from crying. Dude, that’s two million people from a population of of four million. FIFTY PERCENT OF THE POPULACE. Proportionally, he puts even Koba the Dread to shame.

  13. Charlie Avatar

    I have no idea which part of my comments this is supposed to be a response to.
    I’m not surprised somehow. Even though you managed to restate most everything I said.
    But, just for purposes of keeping things together, it’s like this: The Viet Nam was a bust. A mess. A complete debacle. By not dealing with it in some sensible fashion, the death toll on all sides was completely out of line.
    If it had been taken care of once and for all as Iraq is being dealt with — where the totalitarian fascist “Communists” we run out and their government eliminated — we would have avoided the “killing fields” and most of the deaths in Viet Nam. The way it was treated instead — the long slow ramp up of forces, the failure to treat it as a “war”, the failure to interdict supply lines, and the final betrayal of South Viet Nam — was immoral and wrong.
    And I’m saying this as someone who was against the war at the time.

  14. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Charlie,
    Reading up the thread, it’s clear I’ve overreacted to your early comments about the Vietnam War, and that we’re actually closer to being in agreement on that than I allowed. (I don’t dispute that the way it was done was far from the best way it could have been done — though whether that means its objectives were attainable… I’m less sanguine.)
    No, precisely the same mistakes have not been made in Iraq. They’re making different ones.