Regarding the piece on Kissinger, all I will note is that our tour guide here in Siem Reap was talking about this issue of the US bombing with us just the other day. He explained how Sihanouk was allowing the North Vietnamese access to South Vietnam through Cambodia, violating a treaty that Cambodia had signed saying they wouldn't do that very thing. And when the US pressed him on it, providing proof it was happening, Sihanouk denied it, let it continue, and left the US with the option of letting North Vietnamese keep coming through -- or bombing.
And I have to wonder why that Intercept piece makes no mention of that part of the story. Make no mistake, I'm no fan of much of US policy in SEA or anywhere else. But I think an honest accounting serves everyone better.
Ahhh it’s complicated! A more sympathetic-to-Sihanouk take would suggest his “allowing” (not that he really had much of a choice) the North Vietnamese bases and transit routes in the northeast (they’d been transiting through there since the early 60s) were an attempt to protect the long term territorial integrity of his country, and, on that count, he was successful in the long term.
The US invasion and bombing on the other hand, was as much the ongoing “Vietnamisation” of the war and Nixon having a hissy fit over the Tet Offensive as trying to hold a dude who, to say the least, was mercurial, to his word. FWIW, the South likewise ran military missions into Cambodia (in violation of its “neutrality”) through the 60s (and perhaps even the 50s, I can’t remember), so, yeah, there is plenty of blame and bullshit to go around, but, well, only one country dropped 100,000 tonnes of bombs on the country.
Absolutely only one country dropped those bombs. But I intensely dislike not being told the entire story in order to feed me a narrative that the journalist wants to lead me to a preordained conclusion. Give me all of the information and let me make up my own mind.
Dear Stuart,
Either provide more hours in the day or stop linking to so much interesting stuff.
Sincerely,
Michael
Regarding the piece on Kissinger, all I will note is that our tour guide here in Siem Reap was talking about this issue of the US bombing with us just the other day. He explained how Sihanouk was allowing the North Vietnamese access to South Vietnam through Cambodia, violating a treaty that Cambodia had signed saying they wouldn't do that very thing. And when the US pressed him on it, providing proof it was happening, Sihanouk denied it, let it continue, and left the US with the option of letting North Vietnamese keep coming through -- or bombing.
And I have to wonder why that Intercept piece makes no mention of that part of the story. Make no mistake, I'm no fan of much of US policy in SEA or anywhere else. But I think an honest accounting serves everyone better.
Ahhh it’s complicated! A more sympathetic-to-Sihanouk take would suggest his “allowing” (not that he really had much of a choice) the North Vietnamese bases and transit routes in the northeast (they’d been transiting through there since the early 60s) were an attempt to protect the long term territorial integrity of his country, and, on that count, he was successful in the long term.
The US invasion and bombing on the other hand, was as much the ongoing “Vietnamisation” of the war and Nixon having a hissy fit over the Tet Offensive as trying to hold a dude who, to say the least, was mercurial, to his word. FWIW, the South likewise ran military missions into Cambodia (in violation of its “neutrality”) through the 60s (and perhaps even the 50s, I can’t remember), so, yeah, there is plenty of blame and bullshit to go around, but, well, only one country dropped 100,000 tonnes of bombs on the country.
Kissinger is a war criminal.
Absolutely only one country dropped those bombs. But I intensely dislike not being told the entire story in order to feed me a narrative that the journalist wants to lead me to a preordained conclusion. Give me all of the information and let me make up my own mind.