Bush's "Killing Fields" and the Real Lesson of Vietnam

George Bush's invocation of the "killing fields" in Cambodia to try to bolster his failing argument for an indefinite continuation of the Iraq occupation was a reference to the extreme right's decades-old rant that U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam caused the bloodbath in Pol Pot's Cambodia.

That argument makes a hash of the history of the Vietnam era, but maybe it's a good thing that he has brought it up now. The media and the blogosphere need to go back over how the killing fields actually came about. The fact is, more than three decades after the end of the U.S. military involvement in Indochina, there has still not been a real debate about the relationship between U.S. policy in Vietnam and the human consequences for Cambodia.

The heavy-breathing right-wing crowd has long blamed the anti-war movement, Congress and anyone else who supported the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam for the unnumbered dead in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime. That argument has been used as an ideological cudgel to keep intellectuals and the media in line, so the next time the United States goes to war and it turns sour, they would be afraid to demand an end to it. Now it's time to drive a stake through it once and for all.

What Bush and his extreme right-wing allies don't want Americans to remember is that it was the American war in Vietnam that made the Khmer Rouge such an irresistible power in Cambodia. Before the U.S. ground troops poured into Vietnam in 1965, there was no armed struggle by the Cambodian Communist movement. It was only because of the spillover of the U.S. war between 1965 and 1969 that they were given the opportunity to contest for power.

U.S. B-52 attacks and ground operations against the Viet Cong base areas in South Vietnam pushed the Viet Cong troops across the border into the jungles of Eastern Cambodia. That, in turn, destabilized Cambodia's economy, as the Viet Cong troops purchased an estimated 40 Cambodia's rice exports on the black market. That in turn led the Cambodian military to use force to get rice from peasants at artificially low prices. The Communists in Cambodia quickly took advantage of that situation to launch an armed uprising.

Even after four years of war in Vietnam, however, the Khmer Rouge were far from being able to contest for national power in Cambodia. In 1970, they had an estimated 2,400 to 4,000 guerrillas, few of whom had modern weapons.

This is where the story is full of bitter irony. Had Richard Nixon chosen to negotiate a quick end to the war, the Vietnamese troops would have left Cambodia, Sihanouk probably would have remained in power and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge would probably have remained a footnote to history. Instead, however, Nixon opted for four more years of war, and in order to gain time politically, he invoked the threat of a "bloodbath" in Vietnam if the United States were to withdraw prematurely.

That was a completely phony issue for which Nixon and Kissinger did not have a shred of evidence. But Nixon's decision against peace in Vietnam set in motion another new dynamic that made the postwar massacre in Cambodia inevitable.

When Sihanouk's right-wing opponents ousted him from power in March 1970, it may or may not have been with the explicit encouragement of the Nixon administration. The full story has yet to be written on that question. But Nixon did nothing to try to reverse a process that could only result in Cambodia being completely engulfed in war.

After just two years of extremely heavy bombing by the United States of the vast Khmer Rouge zone of Cambodia, that movement had exploded to some 50,000 troops and was able to go on the offensive. By then, nothing except a massive number of U.S. ground troops in Cambodia indefinitely could have stopped the Khmer Rouge victory.

It was the Nixon's geographical escalation of the Vietnam War itself -- not of the success of the antiwar movement or Congressional fatigue with war - that produced that outcome.

So the real lesson of the Vietnam-Cambodia war is that U.S. elective war is profoundly destabilizing, and that destabilization has a terrible human cost, which may spread beyond the country where the war began.

But there is a further lesson from that war. When Nixon began crying "bloodbath" in 1969 the Vietnam War was already four years old. It was his fateful decision to continue and escalate that war that brought about the Cambodian catastrophe. The longer American wars of occupation are continued, the worse the human and political consequences.

Now history appears to be repeating itself. Once again, after four years of war, a president is crying "bloodbath" even as he appears to be headed toward the geographical escalation of the war. Only this time the escalation will be far more dangerous than was the escalation into Cambodia in 1970.

Comments

[smartstuart]

This is a fantastic history of what really happens when liars and frauds who care nothing about huiman life-even the lives of their own troops-believe in an Imperial Presidency. This should be force-fed to every GOP Member-and Joe LIEberman!!! Hopefully lefties around the country will pick up on its contents and , once and for all stick it to the right-wing broadcasters who blame the pols and the media for the bloodbath!!!

[brooklyncitizen]

Gareth thanks for the post. I saw you on Democracy Now and decided to check out your blog.

Once again the US is at the heart of the violence and mayhem in a sovereign nation. One wonders (I wonder)about who is really behind the Iraqui death squads that are killing hundreds weekly. THe media regardless of who you watch, uses the "insurgent" label too freely but it is all from a Bush Administraton script.

The fact is that there is a private US militia that is accountable to no-one. The US has backed funded and armed militias to foster violence in Nicaragua, Guatemala Haiti and other Latin American countries.

Same old same old.

[wcs55]

The United States is not a Democracy.­.....it is a constitutional Republic.

Isn't it ironic that those who have been in and seen combat will avoid it if they possibly can but those who have never experienced it beat the war drums the loudest.

[darker]

The real lesson of Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, etc. is THIS: bang-bang, you're dead! while war-profiteers make lots of money over your dead body.

[yellowdogSC]

Well,

at least it's not a COMPLETE waste.....

[Tennessean]

It's tragic irony that because Bush refused to serve in Vietnam, and used his family's connections to avoid his service obligations, even in the US, not to mention destroying the documented proof that he was, indeed, AWOL, he is here today to repeat Nixonion history by invoking the "bloodbath" canard at the 4-year-point of the war.

4,000 dead Americans; a million dead Iraqis; two bankrupt nations; a destabilized world, a destabilized economy at home and abroad, and a war which is history repeating itself, with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell at the heart of it. I don't know a more tragic horror than being forced to relive nightmarish history. They say that is the definition of HELL. Well, I say, Bush is the Anti-Christ, too.

[HamletsMill]

It's truly a GroundHog Day that I honestly never thought I would ever see again. The American people has better wake up and very, very soon.

[FreedomFries]

It would be nice to know who owns "defence" industry stocks before they push for war, defend war and seek to prolong war. I wonder if the Cheney's own any Lockheed Martin, for example. And does Rupert just own media?

[TitaniumAvatar]

Nice article.

[Prousa]

All this talk about leaving Vietnam too early. From a president who stayed at home rather than go fight - who, in fact, managed to go AWOL from cushy National Guard duty at home!

Chickenhawk? Coward, I say.

[CitizenE]

Sometimes I feel like addressing the rightwing propaganda machine is a Sisyphusian task. Here's what we know--the mission in Iraq will end badly, how badly--God only knows (and that is if God concerns itself with such things). Like Mickey Mouse in the Sorceror's Apprentice, we've invoked powers we are too incompetent to understand, to do job that a simple mop and broom could have addressed. We've turned a punk in a cave into a prophet and a hero. All the signs as a result point to a flood engulfing the region and the world which may eclipse the killing fields in Cambodia after the Viet Nam war, albeit the Vietnam war itself was far more disasterous for our troops than our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been. No matter when it ends or how, the antiwar movement will be blamed for its failures.

[BiggerEd]

I'm confused. As a Vietnam vet during the Tet Offensive of 1968, I thought our goal was to stop the spread of Communism in SE Asia (remember the Domino Theory/) Well, we left, the dominoes didn't fall - so I figure we won. Why not use the same strategy in Iraq? Pull out and let democracy champion itself. Bush figured out a way to get out of Vietnam, so it should be easy to get out of Iraq.

[CJC]

Likely back then you could never have imagined that today you can sit in the lobby of the new Park Hyatt Saigon and watch the world go by (it's right up the street from the Sheraton Saigon). The old airport is still there however Vietnam Airways now has a new fleet of Boeing 777's in their domestic service. Who would have thought? While we will never forget the terrible things that happened there the ultimate outcome was far different than what we were told to expect.

[Ladyrantsalot]

The White House did not understand Southeast Asian history during the Vietnam War and the White House does not understand Southeast Asian or Middle Eastern history today. These ideologues do not study history to learn things, they cherry pick history to buttress their predetermined "theories" about how the world works.

[StephenB]

An excellent response to Bush's "The Vietnam war was good; ending the Vietnam war was bad" nonsense.

The Vietnam war accomplished none of its intended goals but created a world of hurt instead. And as you point out, expanding and extending the Vietnam war merely brought more death and suffering, not "peace with honor", as was promised.

It's all about trying to rewrite history using the magician's book of speculation and trying to blame someone else for the horrible and predictable results of tragically flawed military misadventures.

[takemeaway]

It is amazing that anyone, at this point in history, would try to say we should have stayed in Viet Nam. Bush and Co. must really think we're idiots.

It's also disgusting how this president trots out a very painful time in many people's lives and uses it to support his horrific enterprise.

This man has no soul.

[StephenB]

"It is amazing that anyone, at this point in history, would try to say we should have stayed in Viet Nam."

Agreed. Apparently Bush truly is brainless without Carl Rove. With apologies to Kris Kristofferson, I penned the following refrain for Bush's Blues"

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing and that's all Turd Blossom left me,
Sounding good was easy Lord when Turdie wrote the words,
Sounding good was good enough for me,
Good enough for me and Turdie Bee"

__

[ultomatt]

Politicians typically reverse cause and effect to bolster their psychotic goals. This is what our Fuhrer did in comparing Vietnam and Iraq. He took the effect of a likely bloodbath after this country leaves Iraq, and characterized it as being causal, as in, it is without precedents.

Wrong.

The cause of all this is HIS decision to illegally attack a sovereign country. Every single death that has occurred there (is it a million yet?) is on HIS head. And every death that will occur after we leave, is on HIS head. He's the responsible party to this atrocity, and now he's trying to get out from under the shadow of responsibility by accusing those who want out of being complacent to the coming bloodbath. It's hard to find a more vile and disgusting criminal in the entire history of this nation!

This war has long since become a bloodbath, and no "surges" or new plans will change that. Nothing can save the Iraqi's from the fate this criminal has carved out of their flesh. It's a fait accompli and the only choice now is whether we stay and make it worse, or leave and let it play itself out. If the US continues to try to "improve" the situation, the only result will be more bloodshed, more innocent deaths, and an even greater recruitment of people who want to destroy the infidels (that's you and me pilgrim!). Considering how this country has eviscerated Iraq and the Iraqi people, in this, only it's most recent meddling in the affairs of this region, can you blame them for wanting revenge?

The end result, regardless of which direction you look, will be more innocent people dying. From all the evidence available I see, that's exactly what our Dear Leader wants...be­cause this is how his "base" makes their profits, by murdering innocent people, under the guise of "war". Only problem is, war is the wrong word when 99.5% of those who die are innocents. The proper word is slaughter. So I guess the reality is, War Profiteers are really Slaughter Profiteers.

[timetraveler2039]

After all these years, I finally realize that my first husband married me not for love, but to get out of being drafted and going to Vietnam...­..Bush had his Daddy -- Cheney had other things to do. I am convinced that if any of these bozos had experienced the war in Viet Nam, they would never have thought about invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

It's obscene that the words Viet Nam ever come out of their mouths -- and that Ari Fleischer is spending $15,000,000 on Pro Iraq War ads just prior to Gen. Petraesus' report -- Perhaps when the casualties in this ill-conceived act of hubris reaches 60,000, Fleischer can use his $15,000,000 to commission an Iraq Memorial Wall -- these dunderheads are without conscience!

[HamletsMill]

"After all these years, I finally realize that my first husband married me not for love, but to get out of being drafted and going to Vietnam...­..Bush had his Daddy -- Cheney had other things to do."

Well, it sounds like you got screwed back then one way and now you are getting screwed all these years later another way. U.S. National Policy is certainly having it's way with you.

[yellowdogSC]

Please!

[Checquoline]

If there were a true paralell between Viet Nam and Iraq, then we wouldn't be there because Bush DIDN'T GO TO VIET NAM!!

[PlanetKansas]

Pol Pot took his cue for mass executions and re-educating the peasant class from Stalin and Mao. Why is it, there have been revolutions in France, Russia, Mexico, China, and yes, Iraq, yet only America ended up with a "democracy?"

I will give the short answer. It is because all of the prior countries had existing poor and government infrastructures. One cannot "take over" a country without keeping the water running, and the trash and taxes collected. The early colonials avoided this trappings of the old cultures by simply killing off the native culture and starting with a fresh one.

Pol Pot and Mao tried to do the same by exterminating the middle class to create a new peasant society. History teaches us that there can never be enough killing to accomplish this, that culture always survives every invasion. Observe modern Mexico for all of the Aztec and Mayan cultural leftovers.

It is a pity that Bush and his neocons were so delusional thinking they could conquer and reform a culture by dismissing it's government and standing army.

[maddogbitesback]

Sorry buddy. You got that wrong. America went through a lot and it still hasn't achieved true democracy. Bush was appointed. Slavery - took a horrific civil war to end that. Another hundred years and blacks can now vote if they aren't caged. They certainly lack what some would consider to be full rights.

As to other revolutions - well you see the English had a revolution long before the Americans. It was crushed by landowners. But the idea worked its way along just as the idea of democracy is sort of working its way along in the States. I mean the British had Magna Carta and habeas corpus eight hundred years ago. Recently, America tossed habeas corpus. Can't say that is democratic. Women didn't get the vote til when? And that took a huge fight. The French Revolution worked very well though it took a while to get the kinks worked out. Still it worked better in France than in America. Read about how the British helped suppress the Chinese revolution - not Mao's but the other one. Then there was Sun Yat Sen. Had to pay all the taxes he collected to western banks. Japan invaded - no help. Chiang Kai Chek wound up on Taiwan. So corrupt even the Chinese were amazed but supported by the US. Stalin didn't lead the Russian Revolution. Lenin did. Buy a history book.

[PlanetKansas]

I put "democracy" in quotes for that reason. My comments were not without research, the most common reference on the subject is Hanna Arendt's "On Revolution­."

Ms. Arendt begins with the question, why are there so many revolutions, but few end up with the government and freedom they rebeled for. She concludes that every victor must maintain the bureacracy to continue minimal government infrastructure. As a result, one can find remnents of the Czar in Russia, and even Louis XIX in France. The peasent class provided further problems to the revolutionairies, who recruited their support, but were then forced to deal with their poverty and problems. Keeping a standing military and existing government jobs kept everything stable, and through the years, the status quo always survived.

She concludes that America, didn't get a revolution in the bargain either, but defined it more as a revolt from British rulers. Our government and bureaucracy actually has enormous influence from the English.

The research is already out there and it is a tragedy the Bush neocons didn't do their homework. Mao and Pol Pot knew this, and actually tried extermination to totally erase a government to replace it with their version of paradise. Cruel from our observation, but very much based in historical observation.

To sum it all up, it is pointless to every try to foster revolution or change in any country. In the end, the culture creates the bureaucracy. To try to spread Democracy throughout the world is pointless, cultures will always install themselves in the organization. That is why Mexico shares a border, but is so different from America, Guatamala to Mexico, and all down the line.