Remember: for Cambodia, read Iraq

The Times (UK) ^ | March 3, 2007 | by William Shawcrossn

[aculeus]

The Killing Fields illustrates brilliantly part of the long disaster that has been Cambodia over recent decades. It is a compelling film that follows the story of a young Cambodian, Dith Pran, who worked for the New York Times reporter Sidney Schanberg in Cambodia during the brutal five-year war that resulted in the communist Khmer Rouge victory in April 1975.

At that moment all the foreigners and their Cambodian friends took refuge in the French Embassy, hoping for safe passage out of the country. They had not reckoned with the horrific total revolution that the communists planned to impose. They demanded that all the Cambodians, including Pran, surrender, while the foreigners were trucked out of the country. In tears, the foreigners, including Schanberg, let their friends go. Many were murdered at once as “Western agents”.

For the next three and a half years Pran had to conceal his past as he worked in the fields. The communists under Pol Pot shut Cambodia off and imposed one of the most vicious totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Up to two million of the seven million people died, either murdered by the Khmer Rouge or from starvation and disease as a result of the draconian agrarian policies they imposed. Pran survived.

At the end of 1975 I went to the Thai-Cambodian border to talk to refugees. Their horrific stories of people with glasses being killed as “intellectuals” and of “bourgeois” babies being beaten to death against trees were being dismissed as CIA propaganda by the antiAmerican Western Left, but it seemed obvious to me that they were true. I wanted to discover how the Khmer Rouge had grown and come to power; I wrote a book called Sideshow, which was very critical of the way in which the United States had brought war to Cambodia while trying to extricate itself from Vietnam.

But horror had engulfed all of Indo-China as a result of the US defeat in 1975. In Vietnam and Laos there was no vast mass murder but the communists created cruel gulags and, from Vietnam in particular, millions of people fled, mostly by boat and mostly to the US. Given the catastrophe of the communist victories, I have always thought that those like myself who were opposed to the American efforts in Indochina should be very humble. I also think it wrong to dismiss the US efforts there as sheer disaster. Lee Kuan Yew, the former longtime Prime Minister of Singapore, has a subtler view. He argues that, although America lost in IndoChina in 1975, the fact that it was there so long meant that other SouthEast Asian countries had time to build up their economies to relieve the poverty of their peasants and thus resist communist encroachment — which they probably could not have done had IndoChina gone communist in the 1960s.

That long view seems to me to be the one that has to be applied to Iraq. I still believe the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do — and it was something only the United States could have done. For all the horrors that extremist Sunnis and Shias are inflicting on each other today, the US rid the world of the Pol Pot of the Middle East. So long as the vile Saddam family regime remained in power there was no hope of progress in the region. There is still hope — if we do not abandon the Iraqi people.

In Indo-China the majority of Western journalists (including myself) believed that the war could not or should not be won. Similarly today, for too many pundits hatred (and it really is that) of Bush and Blair dominates perceptions. Armchair editorialists love to dismiss the US effort in terms of Abu Ghraib or Haditha. They were not typical moments. Evidence of the courage and commitment of ordinary US soldiers is inadequately covered by many papers, as is the courage of millions of ordinary Iraqis.

There are encouraging signs — the Iraqi military is becoming ever more competent; Sunni tribal leaders seem increasingly angry with al-Qaeda brutalities; parliament is discussing contentious legislation on dividing oil and gas revenues fairly between different parts of the country; the dinar is still strong, indicating confidence; most Iraqis still seem to desire a united country.

Of course huge mistakes have been made. We should lament and criticise them but not dismiss the underlying effort. President Bush’s new strategy (and probably his last throw) is to “surge” thousands of US troops into Baghdad. Rather than abusing him we should all be hoping that it is not too little too late.

The consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in IndoChina. As the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Musab al-Zarqawi, said before he was killed by a US air strike: “The shedding of Muslim blood is allowed in order to disrupt the greater evil of disrupting jihad.”

If Iraq collapses, such nihilist killing will spread far wider. As in Cambodia, bloody mass murder is the only alternative to what the US-led coalition is trying to achieve. Thanks to the sacrifice of young American and British soldiers, and to the courage of millions of ordinary Iraqis, the country can still have a better future — if we remain committed. Remember 1975.

William Shawcross is the author of Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia, and Allies: The US, Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq

[aculeus]

Shawcross is one of the very few anti-war (Vietnam era) types to admit he was wrong ... very wrong ... unlike Sulzberger stooge Sidney Schanberg, the "hero" of he film.

Details at this link ...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

[atomicpossum]

Nice to see some of them 'get it.'

[Felis_irritable]

Good grief. Another one comes around, and not only that, he admits he was wrong in unequivocal terms.

I saw Sideshow in a bookstore when it was first printed, and skimmed it pretty thoroughly. I came away thinking "What a load of BS."

Better late than never, I suppose.

[bray]

Their horrific stories of people with glasses being killed as “intellectuals” and of “bourgeois” babies being beaten to death against trees were being dismissed as CIA propaganda by the antiAmerican Western Left,

Most of us would agree that this is still happening.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[aculeus]

Better late than never, I suppose.

Actually he saw the light several years ago. Schanberg and the other Sulzberger stooges are still deep in denial.

[PerConPat]

It's always worthwhile to revisit this topic, but especially now. When Walter Cronkite, and many others, poisoned the somnolent public's understanding of why we fought then, just as some of the usual suspects- e.g. Hanoi Jane- are doing again, the country was terribly weakened. When I joined the VFW years ago, after Vietnam, I was shocked to hear comments echoing that Leftist shill Cronkite's line at meetings of my local post. I then realized how deep the damage had seeped into the nation's fiber.

I've spent decades whipping the insights of Walt Rostow, David Horowitz and the likes of Shawcrosson- to name a few- down on the poor slob unfortunate enough to bad mouth, within my hearing, US efforts in Vietnam and now in Iraq etc.. And I consider it my duty to do so at every opportunity- checkout line, post office, wherever. Thanks for posting this.

[aculeus]

Thanks for posting this.

My pleasure. IIRC Shawcross has apologized to Kissinger

[xmission]

Thanks to everyone here who has served our country.

[PerConPat]

IIRC Shawcross has apologized to Kissinger

I have read the same thing concerning Shawcross.

After the fall of Cambodia to the communists, British author William Shawcross accused Henry Kissinger of being a war criminal responsible for the U.S. bombing of Cambodia and the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. In recent years, Sihanouk has admitted what Vietnam doves repeatedly denied. He did give Washington a wink and a nod to bomb North Vietnam's privileged sanctuaries inside Cambodia. Most of the civilians in those border areas had already been evacuated. And Shawcross has apologized to Kissinger.
Arnaud de Borchgrave

[aculeus]

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Chgogal]

My word....what a good post. Thank you. There is not one word I do not agree with.

[Chgogal]

"There are encouraging signs — the Iraqi military is becoming ever more competent; Sunni tribal leaders seem increasingly angry with al-Qaeda brutalities; parliament is discussing contentious legislation on dividing oil and gas revenues fairly between different parts of the country; the dinar is still strong, indicating confidence; most Iraqis still seem to desire a united country."

For some good stats see the attached link. Linux07ster updates this thread very now and then and is doing the work that MSM should be doing. Post 67 has some interesting charts. Numbers aren't everything but they are a good indicator. The whole thread is very worthwhile, if you have not seen it yet.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792428/posts?page=67#67

[aculeus]

Great link. Thanks.

[Chgogal]

"But horror had engulfed all of Indo-China as a result of the US defeat in 1975. In Vietnam and Laos there was no vast mass murder but the communists created cruel gulags and, from Vietnam in particular, millions of people fled, mostly by boat and mostly to the US. Given the catastrophe of the communist victories, I have always thought that those like myself who were opposed to the American efforts in Indochina should be very humble. I also think it wrong to dismiss the US efforts there as sheer disaster. Lee Kuan Yew, the former longtime Prime Minister of Singapore, has a subtler view. He argues that, although America lost in IndoChina in 1975, the fact that it was there so long meant that other SouthEast Asian countries had time to build up their economies to relieve the poverty of their peasants and thus resist communist encroachment — which they probably could not have done had IndoChina gone communist in the 1960s.

That long view seems to me to be the one that has to be applied to Iraq. I still believe the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do — and it was something only the United States could have done. For all the horrors that extremist Sunnis and Shias are inflicting on each other today, the US rid the world of the Pol Pot of the Middle East. So long as the vile Saddam family regime remained in power there was no hope of progress in the region. There is still hope — if we do not abandon the Iraqi people.

In Indo-China the majority of Western journalists (including myself) believed that the war could not or should not be won. Similarly today, for too many pundits hatred (and it really is that) of Bush and Blair dominates perceptions. Armchair editorialists love to dismiss the US effort in terms of Abu Ghraib or Haditha. They were not typical moments. Evidence of the courage and commitment of ordinary US soldiers is inadequately covered by many papers, as is the courage of millions of ordinary Iraqis.

Shawcross' criticism of MSM is accurate. Most of the US population swallow the news from MSM outlets hook line and sinker.

Cutting and running from Vietnam was a tragedy for millions of Asians. Your presence, ladtx and leadpenny, was a stabilizing influence for the rest of S.E. Asia. That was a very good and thoughtful insight from Lee Kuan Yew. Like I said in a previous post, ladtx and leadpenny, many millions of world citizens owe you much. Hopefully this country's "Opposing Party" will recognize the wise words of Shawcross.

[aculeus]

Another bump.

[Chgogal]

Hopefully you will find this post worth while. I found this statement especially interesting.

"There are encouraging signs — the Iraqi military is becoming ever more competent; Sunni tribal leaders seem increasingly angry with al-Qaeda brutalities; parliament is discussing contentious legislation on dividing oil and gas revenues fairly between different parts of the country; the dinar is still strong, indicating confidence; most Iraqis still seem to desire a united country."

For some good stats see the attached link. Post 67 has some interesting charts. Numbers aren't everything but they are a good indicator. The whole thread is very worthwhile, if you have not seen it yet.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792428/posts?page=67#67

[Popocatapetl]

Looking at Iraq strategically for a moment, ask what are Iraq's "worse case scenarios", and what do they mean?

I see four major possibilities.

1) Sectarian strife. The artificial population transfers, done by Saddam as rewards and punishment, are being reversed, with the three major regions returning to homogeneous populations of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Once these have happened, the sectarianism ends, as it loses it reason for fighting. The three groups, however, are all motivated to stay part of Iraq and support the central government. The worst possibility for sectarianism remains in Baghdad, which will continue to be a microcosm of the nation as a whole. But that is being addressed as we speak, and it seems to be to working. If security can be migrated to the Iraqis themselves, then this problem ends.

2) Loss of a small part of Iraq to terrorist control. This is of major importance to the US, as Iraq must continue to police up any training camps and prevent the capture of towns by al-Qaeda and organized crime gangs. We also know that this is a major goal of both al-Qaeda and the remaining insurgents. Only an efficient military and national police will be able to stop this in the future.

3) The invasion of southern Iraq by the Iranian military and IRG, either as a conventional invasion, or as a sponsored uprising. In either case, the purpose would be to force the US divisions in Iraq to restore order to southern Iraq rather than to advance into Iran--a delaying action. The US, however, has seen this possibility, and President Bush has authorized SOCOM to take appropriate countermeasures. Just yesterday, it was suggested that the Iranian general who was kidnapped in Turkey was both in charge of operations for the Iranian forces in central Iraq, and was directly responsible for the kidnap and murder of four American soldiers in January. Buh-bye.

4) If the US and Iran engage in hostilities, it is possible to assume that both Iranian Kurdistan and Iranian Arabic Khuzestan will be partitioned from Iran to respectively become part of Iraqi Kurdistan and the Iraqi South. This could in turn finally result in the peaceful division of Iraq into a southern, Arab nation of Shiites and Sunnis, and a "Greater Kurdistan" in the North. And while such a partition would neither be violent or negative, it would still represent an end to Iraq, as such.

So, if we look at these four "worst case" scenarios, Iraq seems to be in a very good position indeed. And with each passing day, it becomes stronger as a nation, and its democratic institutions gain experience.

[freema]

Piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing

[freema]

NEVER FORGET

[jazusamo]

Excellent piece! It can't be repeated often enough.