Connection Between the Cambodian Campaign and the Khmer Rouge

[Child of Utopia]

Do you believe the 1970 expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia directly contributed to the Khmer Rouge's rise to power and, by relation, the atrocities that followed? And if so, what do you think are the greater implications this has on the concept of American Imperialism?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Yes, of course it did. The US supported the Khmer Rouge following the Vietnamese overthrow of them in 1972. It says the same thing about any state, that they are amoral institutions who seek to defend and advance their own interests.

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the DK [Democratic Kampuchea]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could not support him but China could." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

The only reason the Khmer Rouge survived was because of American intervention.

 

[Oberon]

Do you believe the 1970 expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia directly contributed to the Khmer Rouge's rise to power and, by relation, the atrocities that followed? And if so, what do you think are the greater implications this has on the concept of American Imperialism?

The reason for that was to break Soviet influence in SE Asia, that's all; nothing particularly 'imperialistic' about it, just Cold War geo-politics. The Soviets were the 'Imperialist' power, not the US.

Nobody was predicting the massacres that came later, and despite all the hysteria, US power is limited by local influences, not all-encompassing domination, regardless of what the loons out in the fever swamps fantasize about. It was a part of the Nixon-China detente policy, actually, Red China not being particularly happy with a Soviet puppet state on their southern border.

Like Kissinger said, most of the time choices are limited and many times all of them are bad, so you have to decide which is the least bad, or something to that effect.

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the DK [Democratic Kampuchea]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could not support him but China could." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

I would like to see an original, primary source for that quote. The earliest I can find is from 1995, and Brzezinski denies making it. All the other references to it seem to be hearsay.

We were still in Viet Nam in 1972; we didn't pull out until 1975. !979 sounds like a better time frame than 1972.

 

[Oberon]

Is there an argument for the premise that war wouldn't have spread to Cambodia if the US wasn't involved? Given Soviet foreign policy , my guess is that it would have been far worse, especially if they had won Viet Nam.

 

[MadLib]

The reason for that was to break Soviet influence in SE Asia, that's all; nothing particularly 'imperialistic' about it, just Cold War geo-politics. The Soviets were the 'Imperialist' power, not the US.

Nobody was predicting the massacres that came later, and despite all the hysteria, US power is limited by local influences, not all-encompassing domination, regardless of what the loons out in the fever swamps fantasize about. It was a part of the Nixon-China detente policy, actually, Red China not being particularly happy with a Soviet puppet state on their southern border.

Like Kissinger said, most of the time choices are limited and many times all of them are bad, so you have to decide which is the least bad, or something to that effect.



I would like to see an original, primary source for that quote. The earliest I can find is from 1995, and Brzezinski denies making it. All the other references to it seem to be hearsay.

We were still in Viet Nam in 1972; we didn't pull out until 1975. !979 sounds like a better time frame than 1972.

Is there an argument for the premise that war wouldn't have spread to Cambodia if the US wasn't involved? Given Soviet foreign policy , my guess is that it would have been far worse, especially if they had won Viet Nam.

There is no justification for supporting the Khmer Rouge. None. They were racist fanatics who were also Communists, and they killed Vietnamese, Chinese (the PRC was apathetic to the plight of its own people) and intellectuals (which apparently encompass anybody who wears glasses). About 2 million people died due to the genocide. The only reason we helped them is because the Soviets were on the other side.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

About 2 million people died due to the genocide.

This number masks the countless innocents massacred in the indiscriminate bombing campaigns of Kampuchean cities. The reason your post is ridiculous is because, while it emphasizes the destructive actions of the Khmer Rouge, it completely ignores the complicity of western-backed forces in the massacres.

You say that the US "shouldn't" have supported the Khmer Rouge. What you don't understand is that they did precisely because the US government is equally as amoral and unconcerned with human rights abuses as the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps you should remember that next time before going on silly rants about "Communists".

 

[MadLib]

This number masks the countless innocents massacred in the indiscriminate bombing campaigns of Kampuchean cities. The reason your post is ridiculous is because, while it emphasizes the destructive actions of the Khmer Rouge, it completely ignores the complicity of western-backed forces in the massacres.

You say that the US "shouldn't" have supported the Khmer Rouge. What you don't understand is that they did precisely because the US government is equally as amoral and unconcerned with human rights abuses as the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps you should remember that next time before going on silly rants about "Communists".

I wasn't ranting about Communists. I actually sympathize with socialism. I don't have to be a McCarthyist to believe that the Khmer Rouge were sick bastards. If a capitalist regime did exactly the same thing, my response would be exactly the same (as I've showed in my criticism of Leopold II imperialism). In fact, the genocide was ignoring a basic tenet of communism: that everybody is equal. If Pol Pot was a laissez-faire dictator, and commit the genocide, I still would have thought that he deserves to be drawn and quartered.

I also am a pacifist and am critical of U.S. foreign policy. I despise the U.S. for claiming to be a protector of democracy while simultaneously shooting children in Iraq, the Philippines (100 years ago) and for supporting madmen such as the Khmer Rouge. I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden, or any civilian centers for that matter, should have been bombed.

However, I do believe that it unfair to say that the U.S. is exactly the same as the Khmer Rouge. Our country is a constitutional republic; Democratic Kampuchea was in reality a totalitarian state. The most racist thing that the U.S. did was support institutionalized slavery, and that was 140 years ago. The atrocities committed by the KR occurred a mere 30 years ago, in the age of Apple II and of human rights. The U.S. has done some amoral things for its hegemony, but nothing compared to the Khmer Rouge, or the enslavement and murder of the Congolese by King Leopold, or the Holocaust, or the Great Purge. You've made a false equivalency.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

However, I do believe that it unfair to say that the U.S. is exactly the same as the Khmer Rouge. Our country is a constitutional republic; Democratic Kampuchea was in reality a totalitarian state.

All states in essence operate within the confines of the conditions in which they exist, and exploit their own situation to their advantage. The US state exists within the confines of conditions that make its existence - or appearance - as a democratic republic a necessity, in order to maintain its legitimacy. This has no bearing on the fundamental, concrete fact that when violence is beneficial to advance its own aspirations and defend its own interests, that it will do so provided that it feels it can get away with it. This is why the majority of the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians by the American state and its allies happens outside of American soil.

 

[MadLib]

All states in essence operate within the confines of the conditions in which they exist, and exploit their own situation to their advantage. The US state exists within the confines of conditions that make its existence - or appearance - as a democratic republic a necessity, in order to maintain its legitimacy. This has no bearing on the fundamental, concrete fact that when violence is beneficial to advance its own aspirations and defend its own interests, that it will do so provided that it feels it can get away with it. This is why the majority of the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians by the American state and its allies happens outside of American soil.

Violence against civilians has been increasingly looked down upon and is now highly limited. I believe that the developed countries are getting better on this matter.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Violence against civilians has been increasingly looked down upon and is now highly limited.

Highly limited where?

 

[Oberon]

Well, nobody wants to discuss the realities and history of Cambodian politics, then.

The meme of 'the U.S. just likes to bomb innocent women and children for no reason is cuz it's just evil, and nobody else is' myth is still alive and well, I see.

Nobody seems to mind that the Cambodian government allowed North Vietnamese troops to operate from there with impunity, provided them cover within civilian populations and even cut a deal with Red China to allow unrestricted supply lines through Cambodia in violation of it's own proclamations of 'Neutrality' doesn't matter, and doesn't count as an expansion of the war for some reason, and of course discussing the alternatives is pointless cuz the US is just evil and likes to kill lots of people, while the Maoists and Soviets don't, and nobody would have died at all if weren't for the U.S.

Okay ... whatever ...

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The meme of 'the U.S. just likes to bomb innocent women and children for no reason is cuz it's just evil, and nobody else is' myth is still alive and well, I see.

Oh really? Where? Your post seems to be an implicit defense of American/western-backed atrocities, because you know, if someone recognizes these as facts then they must hate America. :roll:

 

[Oberon]

I'm not interested in fever swamp crap. Play grabass with MadLib. I come to this forum to discuss history stuff. I go upstairs for the sniveling and whining stuff. See my sig.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

See my sig.

Moral justification is equally as "moralist" as moral condemnation, the former of which you are doing, the latter of which nobody is.

 

[MadLib]

Well, nobody wants to discuss the realities and history of Cambodian politics, then.

The meme of 'the U.S. just likes to bomb innocent women and children for no reason is cuz it's just evil, and nobody else is' myth is still alive and well, I see.

Nobody seems to mind that the Cambodian government allowed North Vietnamese troops to operate from there with impunity, provided them cover within civilian populations and even cut a deal with Red China to allow unrestricted supply lines through Cambodia in violation of it's own proclamations of 'Neutrality' doesn't matter, and doesn't count as an expansion of the war for some reason, and of course discussing the alternatives is pointless cuz the US is just evil and likes to kill lots of people, while the Maoists and Soviets don't, and nobody would have died at all if weren't for the U.S.

Okay ... whatever ...

Nobody said that. We are criticizing the U.S. for supporting what are essentially Red Nazis, and for killing civilians during the war. You're attitude seems to be that Americans are the good guys no matter what they actually do.

 

[MadLib]

I'm not interested in fever swamp crap. Play grabass with MadLib. I come to this forum to discuss history stuff. I go upstairs for the sniveling and whining stuff. See my sig.

Oh, I'm sorry we want to change our methods when bad things happen to normal people. I completely deserved the personal attack.

 

[rathi]

Well, nobody wants to discuss the realities and history of Cambodian politics, then.

The meme of 'the U.S. just likes to bomb innocent women and children for no reason is cuz it's just evil, and nobody else is' myth is still alive and well, I see.

Nobody seems to mind that the Cambodian government allowed North Vietnamese troops to operate from there with impunity, provided them cover within civilian populations and even cut a deal with Red China to allow unrestricted supply lines through Cambodia in violation of it's own proclamations of 'Neutrality' doesn't matter, and doesn't count as an expansion of the war for some reason, and of course discussing the alternatives is pointless cuz the US is just evil and likes to kill lots of people, while the Maoists and Soviets don't, and nobody would have died at all if weren't for the U.S.

Okay ... whatever ...

There are lessons to be learned from Vietnam. The entire postwar American policy for Indochina was a series compounding mistakes as increasingly stupid measures were used to try and "fix" the situation created by incompetence. Cambodia was simply the last in a very long line of moronic choices that lead to complete disaster. Escalation Vietnam made domino theory a self fulfilling prophecy as the war created instability which predictably spread to neighboring countries. The response to that situation was to bomb the crap out of said countries, destabilizing them even further. Then after failing in Vietnam, we end up supporting pol pot simply because he was anti-Vietnam. The whole scenario was a bunch of stupid emotional reactions rather than anything approaching sensible policy choices. There is no ****ing logical thought process in which you end up supporting probably the worst communist mass murder of all time in a war fought to "prevent the spread of communism".

 

[Oberon]

There are lessons to be learned from Vietnam. The entire postwar American policy for Indochina was a series compounding mistakes as increasingly stupid measures were used to try and "fix" the situation created by incompetence. Cambodia was simply the last in a very long line of moronic choices that lead to complete disaster. Escalation Vietnam made domino theory a self fulfilling prophecy as the war created instability which predictably spread to neighboring countries. The response to that situation was to bomb the crap out of said countries, destabilizing them even further. Then after failing in Vietnam, we end up supporting pol pot simply because he was anti-Vietnam. The whole scenario was a bunch of stupid emotional reactions rather than anything approaching sensible policy choices. There is no ****ing logical thought process in which you end up supporting probably the worst communist mass murder of all time in a war fought to "prevent the spread of communism".

I disagree that U.S. policy was a 'series of mistakes'; we actually achieved the main strategic goal, which was preventing the Soviets from establishing a major warm water naval base astride key trading routes, where they would have eventually strangled the rest of East Asia.

Our Indochina policy was an outgrowth of Roosevelt's postwar plans made during WW II to dismantle the remnants of European colonialism and modernize Asia into independent states. Khrushchev and Mao had other, imperialist plans of their own for SE Asia.

The first 'serious mistake' for the U.S. was John Kennedy's assassination of Diem, which pretty much made an escalation automatic. If you're interested, we can walk through it all. I'll also throw in that the war also is the war that bankrupted the Soviet Union, despite Reagan falsely taking credit for that, an added benefit. Another, unintended benefit, was the U.S. presence also defused a budding war between the Soviets and Chinese as well, which could have easily kicked off a third 'world war', a nuclear one. More on that also, later.

 

[Oberon]

There is no ****ing logical thought process in which you end up supporting probably the worst communist mass murder of all time in a war fought to "prevent the spread of communism".

I missed this earlier.

Do you think U.S. policy makers deliberately supported Pol Pot because they knew he was going to kill a couple million people?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Our Indochina policy was an outgrowth of Roosevelt's postwar plans made during WW II to dismantle the remnants of European colonialism and modernize Asia into independent states. Khrushchev and Mao had other, imperialist plans of their own for SE Asia.

 

[MadLib]

I missed this earlier.

Do you think U.S. policy makers deliberately supported Pol Pot because they knew he was going to kill a couple million people?

That doesn't matter. We are no better than the Soviets or the Maoists (who, by the way, also supported Pol Pot to escape Soviet influence) if we support Red Fascists like Pol Pot.

 

[MadLib]

Yup. That was always an excuse for imperialism in the Scramble for Africa period, and such. Fits nicely into the whole scientific racism thing. And somehow, with all our "modernized" bombs, guns, choppers and tanks, we still weren't able to beat guerrillas in their own land.

 

[rathi]

I disagree that U.S. policy was a 'series of mistakes'; we actually achieved the main strategic goal, which was preventing the Soviets from establishing a major warm water naval base astride key trading routes, where they would have eventually strangled the rest of East Asia.

Yeah, I'm sure that withdrawing from the region in '73 with 50,000 dead Americans sure "prevented' the Soviets from doing anything.

Our Indochina policy was an outgrowth of Roosevelt's postwar plans made during WW II to dismantle the remnants of European colonialism and modernize Asia into independent states. Khrushchev and Mao had other, imperialist plans of their own for SE Asia.

Utter garbage. The very first step post WW2 was to give our support to the French re-colonizing Indochina.

]The first 'serious mistake' for the U.S. was John Kennedy's assassination of Diem, which pretty much made an escalation automatic.

Diem's successors were incompetent, but Diem himself was a cancer. Putting a repressive Christian theocrat in charge of Buddhist majority country was a recipe for disaster.

If you're interested, we can walk through it all. I'll also throw in that the war also is the war that bankrupted the Soviet Union, despite Reagan falsely taking credit for that, an added benefit. Another, unintended benefit, was the U.S. presence also defused a budding war between the Soviets and Chinese as well, which could have easily kicked off a third 'world war', a nuclear one. More on that also, later.

That is pure fantasy. The U.S. wasted far more resources in Vietnam than the USSR did, not to mention that it was way too early. The war actually exacerbated tensions in the Sino-Soviet relationship, especially in '79 when Vietnam and China fought.

Do you think U.S. policy makers deliberately supported Pol Pot because they knew he was going to kill a couple million people?

No, but it was the sad consequence of their stupidity. They couldn't have known just how nasty he would be beforehand, but it was still utterly moronic to have supported him.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Utter garbage. The very first step post WW2 was to give our support to the French re-colonizing Indochina.

And the Japanese war criminals, don't forget them!

And the Korean mass murderers, them too.