Bombs Over Cambodia

New information reveals that Cambodia was bombed far more heavily than previously believed

Total ordnance dropped on Cambodia, Jan 1. 1970 – Aug. 15, 1973Total ordnance dropped on Cambodia, Jan 1. 1970 – Aug. 15, 1973; the Air Force database reveals that beginning on January 1, 1970, bombing escalated from less than one ton per day to hundreds and sometimes tens of thousands of tons per day

Nixon decided on a different course, and beginning in 1969 the Air Force deployed B-52s over Cambodia. The new rationale for the bombings was that they would keep enemy forces at bay long enough to allow the United States to withdraw from Vietnam. Former US General Theodore Mataxis depicted the move as “a holding action.... The troika’s going down the road and the wolves are closing in, and so you throw them something off and let them chew it.” The result was that Cambodians essentially became cannon fodder to protect American lives.

The last phase of the bombing, from February to August 1973, was designed to stop the Khmer Rouge’s advance on the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh. The United States, fearing that the first Southeast Asian domino was about to fall, began a massive escalation of the air war — an unprecedented B-52 bombardment that focused on the heavily populated area around Phnom Penh but left few regions of the country untouched. The extent of this bombardment has only now come to light.

The data released by Clinton shows the total payload dropped during these years to be nearly five times greater than the generally accepted figure. To put the revised total of 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during allof ?World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15,000 and 20,000 tons, respectively. Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history.

A single B-52d “Big Belly” payload consists of up to 108 225-kilogram or 42 340-kilogram bombs, which are dropped on a target area of approximately 500 by 1,500 metres. In many cases, Cambodian villages were hit with dozens of payloads over the course of several hours. The result was near-total destruction. One US official stated at the time, “We had been told, as had everybody...that those carpet-bombing attacks by B-52s were totally devastating, that nothing could survive.” Previously, it was estimated that between 50,000 and 150,000 Cambodian civilians were killed by the bombing. Given the fivefold increase in tonnage revealed by the database, the number of casualties is surely higher.

The Cambodian bombing campaign had two unintended side effects that ultimately combined to produce the very domino effect that the Vietnam War was supposed to prevent. First, the bombing forced the Vietnamese Communists deeper and deeper into Cambodia, bringing them into greater contact with Khmer Rouge insurgents. Second, the bombs drove ordinary Cambodians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge, a group that seemed initially to have slim prospects of revolutionary success. Pol Pot himself described the Khmer Rouge during that period as “fewer than five thousand poorly armed guerrillas?.?.?.?scattered across the Cambodian landscape, uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty, and leaders.”

Years after the war ended, journalist Bruce Palling asked Chhit Do, a former Khmer Rouge officer, if his forces had used the bombing as anti-American propaganda. Chhit replied:
Every time after there had been bombing, they would take the people to see the craters, to see how big and deep the craters were, to see how the earth had been gouged out and scorched.... The ordinary people sometimes literally shit in their pants when the big bombs and shells came. Their minds just froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told. It was because of their dissatisfaction with the bombing that they kept on co-operating with the Khmer Rouge, joining up with the Khmer Rouge, sending their children off to go with them.... Sometimes the bombs fell and hit little children, and their fathers would be all for the Khmer Rouge.

The Nixon administration knew that the Khmer Rouge was winning over peasants. The cia’s Directorate of Operations, after investigations south of Phnom Penh, reported in May 1973 that the Communists were “using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda.” But this does not seem to have registered as a primary strategic concern.

The Nixon administration kept theair war secret for so long that debate over its impact came far too late. It wasn’t until 1973 that Congress, angered by the destruction the campaign had caused and the systematic deception that had masked it, legislated a halt to the bombing of Cambodia. By then, the damage was already done. Having grown to more than two hundred thousand troops and militia forces by 1973, the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh two years later. They wenton to subject Cambodia to a Maoist agrarian revolution and a genocide in which 1.7 million people perished.

The Nixon Doctrine relied on the notion that the United States could supply an allied regime with the resources needed to withstand internalor external challenges while the US withdrew its ground troops or, in some cases, simply remained at arm’s length. In Vietnam, this meant building up the ground-fighting capability of South Vietnamese forces while American units slowly disengaged. In Cambodia, Washington gave military aid to prop up Lon Nol’s regime from 1970 to 1975 while the US Air Force conducted its massive aerial bombardment.

PreviousPage 2 of 3Next
8 comment(s)

fuerthOctober 15, 2006 08:35 EST

When it's said that insurgents rally to a cause as a result of having lost home and family, my immediate reaction is, "No kidding?"

If a big plane from another country came and wiped out everything I had, I'd pledge the rest of my life toward avenging my loss, as well.

Why is the Bush administration so stupid that they can't see that, particularly in light of how recent history in Cambodia provides them with the empirical evidence?

This is information that needs a broad audience!

eSeptember 09, 2007 14:19 EST

In reply to the comment above, "Why is the Bush administration so stupid that they can't see [that bombing hurts chances of strategic victory over hearts and minds, i.e. the war itself]?"

You are operating under the assumption that the Bush Administration even cares. I would argue that after looking at the facts of who the people in the Bush Administration really are, I would look at them as completely naive megalomaniacs who really don't care about consequences of their actions. Doesn't that also describe the story of George Bush's whole irresponsible life as a son of privilege who spent the war AWOL coked up and drunk? Perhaps his evangelicalism sheds light on the fact that he doesn't really think too hard or question too much. And don't forget that to his political supporters dropping bombs and talking tough is a whole lot sexier than diplomacy and sensible policy, no matter the actual strategic outcome. Also, don't forget that war has been the historical impetus of our economic might and those thousands of bombs, etc. help funnel money to Bush's political supporters, and quite literally to his own family as well. Perhaps if Nixon (and many presidents before and since for that matter) was held accountable to his criminal operations we wouldn't be in this similar mess today? Just some thoughts.

holly tateJune 02, 2008 19:52 EST

im really glad that you are letting ppl be aware of what is going on in our world thank you and god bless

AnonymousDecember 22, 2010 11:56 EST

"What we learn most from history is that we never learn anything from history"

Recovering CatholicJanuary 03, 2011 15:40 EST

I recently re-read Hillary's book; "It Takes a Village."
In discussing it with a friend over the holidays, he was quick to make this tongue-in-cheek comment:

"It takes a village to raise a child but it takes a Viking to raze a village."

Just food for thought.

Anthony MawJanuary 16, 2011 22:04 EST

This conduct of the war in South East Asia was all about race: "Freedom Loving" White Christians men of European extraction have shown they are more than willing and even eagerness to kill as many "Yellow" Asians as they possibly in the name of mis-guided ideology. This coming from the great society that prides itself as being a "Bastion of Democracy" and "Defenders of the Free World"??? Anyone visiting Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam today will still see the legacy of reckless US policy towards Asian people. How does carpet bombing, napalming, zuni rockets, vulcan machine guns, and spraying Agent Orange onto rice crops of rural Cambodian and Laotian villages serve to defend fucking "American Freedom"? Retired proud White US Air Force men today are enjoying their VA pensions in their homes in the United States as the reward for burning to death whole Cambodian families?? I doubt the Americans would have engaged in a similarly vicious and indiscriminant campaign against their fellow European Whites. Who is killed and how they are killed are all predicated on race.

European WhiteFebruary 16, 2011 12:26 EST

Excuse me, Anthony Maw, but you have an example of Serbia bombing in the middle of Europe, in the middle of the 21th century!!! Which is a country inhabited by European white population as you call it.
Do not forget, the race or religion is easy to take for an excuse, but that is not the going to determine or stop the decisions of any killings or "war" actions... For example, the economic development of the country or a region might "justify" these actions more easily. The race will not limit or stop from committing a war crime any power and control hungry murderers that we ELECT on the elections

AnonymousDecember 12, 2011 00:16 EST

What does history teach us nothing. The French were in Indochina and they lost the war. Their final defeat took place in 1954 in Dien Bien Phu. The United States made the same mistake in Vietnam and result was the same. The Soviets invaded Afganistan in 1979 and had to retreat in 1989. Th United States lead coalition attacted Afganistan in 2001 and quite soon they will be pulling their troops out.

Comment on this article
  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
March 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Laughs
Search the web, support the Walrus Foundation
COPA