Talk:Operation Menu

Aftermath

This section states that since this bombing/incursion was conducted without the consent of Congress, it would have been cause for impeachment of the President. I question this statement. Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the then-current state of Constitutional Law in this area, but I believe it would have been a cause for impeachment only if the President actively, knowingly took part in deceiving Congress. In that case, it would have been the act of deception/lying/perjury, not the bombing itself, that may have been an impeachable offense, if it could be proven to measure up to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" (ie. that an actual crime had been committed by the President). If somebody can clear this up for me, that would be appreciated.

[Note: This question (unsigned) is from the old version of the article before substantial rewrite and referencing of 2006-11-07, 11-08. Lumbercutter 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)]

• Regardless of the "high crimes" label, the point is moot. The bombing of a neutral country would most probably fall under the aegis of international war crimes, such as the stipulation against waging aggressive war. The secretive nature of the action only condemns its practitioners, since it revealed their knowledge of the posssible repercussions of their actions. RM Gillespie 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are there no casualty / loss estimates on the Cambodian side in this article? There are many published estimates, and their gravity suggests they be looked into for inclusion here as they lend perspective to the serious human cost of the "beyond covertness" that occured during these activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.106.188.82 (talk)

Didn't Operation Menu create strong anti-American sentiment in Cambodia that led to widespread support of the Khmer Rouge? If this is true and verifiable, we should definitely add this. Commissarusa (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

It would be helpful if the author cited his sources here.--Buckboard 09:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to dig my copy of Sideshow out, but I know that Shawcross lists all of the things currently tagged with {{fact}}. --Easter Monkey 06:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Required

I added a cleanup tag to this article because some of the sentences are gramatically incorrect or are composed in an awkward manner. For example: "Deception revealed when Major Knight wrote to Senator William Proxmire, asking for 'clarification' as to US policy on bombing Cambodia. He spilled the beans as to the deception."

In addition, I added a tag about the article's inappropriate tone. For example, one passage reads, "Lying on official records. This deception went beyond covertness." The tone of this passage strikes me as editorial in nature. It may true that someone lied on official records, but one need say so in a manner that does not seem overly dramatic or condemnatory.

--Skb8721 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I just started editing this stub today and look at the response. Fantastic! As per the aftermath, I didnt write that. So, I can't really comment, except to say that Nixon considered it within the perrogatives granted him under the Southeast Asia Resolution of 1964. As for impeachment, they thought about it, but due to the bigger fish being fried during Watergate, this got sidelined. With Gerald Ford's pardon (for crimes not committed), it became impossible. RM Gillespie 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that I have finished editing the article, you'll see that it was not I who made such an overly dramatic or condemnatory a statement. When the DOD (presided over by the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef who were all privy to Menu) presented those records to the Armed Services Committee, knowing that they were falsifications, I believe that that would be considered lying. They were caught red-handed. RM Gillespie 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Kudos to RM Gillespie

Kudos to RM Gillespie for improving this article's quality by several orders of magnitude in the past few days. When he first started, I was thinking "oh great, another 'improvement', let's see where this goes…" However, as he progressed, it became clear that the initial edits were just the bones of a rough draft. Today I came back and I see that this article is now better referenced than 99% of WP articles. Normally I would not comment on minor improvements, but this is huge. So kudos to you RM Gillespie! Lumbercutter 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gracias, amigo. Check out Operation Freedom Deal to see the next phase of Air Ops in Cambodia. RM Gillespie 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose moving the article to United States bombing of Cambodia. Any thoughts?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that actually needs to be a new article. This article is only about one specific campaign - see also Operation Freedom Deal and there were other air operations in Cambodia outside of both campaigns. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. A new article is probably best. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation of bombing data released by Clinton

The data released by Clinton in the year 2000 does not cover all U.S. bombing of Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia --not by a long shot.

The years that the data comprises are also considerably narrower than the full scope of the war.

It seems to me that some people have based this part of the article (and perhaps other mentions on the wikipedia) on only a cursory reading of the first paragraph of the Kiernan article for the Walrus (currently the only citation).

Anyone who has glanced at the long list of official "entities" (i.e., separate air forces) that the U.S. used as cut-outs to conduct the bombings will be aware that you're looking at a small (if indicative) sub-set of the data on aerial bombardment.

The experts involved in actual UXO removal in Laos tend to be aware of this fact. People are easily misled into thinking that "U.S. air force" data includes the various attacking forces that the U.S. set up and paid for (as subsidiary to various puppet governments, etc.) --but it doesn't.

The C.I.A. had its own chain of command, and their planes were not part of "the U.S. air force" in any sense. Planes that were flying out of Thailand did so under a variety of banners, some C.I.A., some R.L.G., etc. etc. Looking at the totals in each column is a tricky business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.196.9 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No death totals??

There have been lots of estimates about the loss of life due to the United States' bombing of Cambodia, with many figures as high as 600,000 to 1,000,000. How is this not included? Wikipediarules2221 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We need an official source, preferably some government documents or credible reports by third party NGO or think tanks. Right now we have random speculation.Chudogg (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Source found and # added. Publicus 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

The Dictionary of Genocide attributes its otherwise arbitrary assertion that 700-1,000,000 were killed to the CIA, but /these figures are higher than the CIA's estimate of deaths from all causes throughout the entire Cambodian Civil War--which US bombing played only a minor role in as regards the death toll (there is a separate question as to whether or not the US intervention incited further violence). Therefore, I must conclude it is not a reliable source.

The most widely accepted estimate is Kiernan's 50-150,000. R.J. Rummel, regularly cited by Wikipedia, claims a minimum of 30,000 and a more likely estimate of 300,000. The most comprehensive demographic study by far concluded that 40,000 Cambodians were killed (see Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995), pp41-8). Ponchaud estimated 200,000. Even Edward Herman has claimed only 100-200,000 were killed by the bombing.

The estimate of 800,000 killed comes from official Khmer Rouge propaganda. An estimate of 700-1,000,000 is demographically and statistically impossible. If it were true, then how did every census ever taken overlook a million missing Cambodians killed in a matter of months just in the eastern part of the country? If just in eastern Cambodia there were a million deaths; there would have been three million wounded. Why did virtually none of them ever get treatment for their wounds?

Then there is the toll from the entire Cambodian civil war. The idea that all of the deaths on all sides were caused by American bombing is incredible. The death toll from the entire war can help us evaluate the impact of the US bombing that accounted only for a fraction of its death toll. Bruce Sharp notes:

[Quoted material redacted -- much too long to qualify for fair use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, if 250,000 were killed throughout the entire war; then US bombing could have accounted for only a fraction of that sum. Wikipedia's article on the Cambodian Civil War suggests that as many as 600,000 died in the war; your figures would imply that all of these deaths and then some were due solely to American bombing.

Because Dictionary of Genocide is not a reliable source; I will incorporate this range of seemingly reliable sources into the article, all of which suggest a lower toll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I will cite both sides of the argument on whether or not the bombing really boosted the Khmer Rouge. I've eliminated "citation needed" for two things: We already have citations that Clinton declassified these secret documents, and there is ample documentation that Nixon ("the madman President") was trying to scare the North Vietnamese into halting their military aggression.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not really an expert, but this series of edits seems to be sourced and consistent with something I read in other sources. So, the wholesale revert without any discussion was definitely against the policies.Biophys (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kent State Shootings

I feel that it is inaccurate to suggest the actions taken by the Ohio National Guard that resulted in the Kent State shooting was an engagement of the Vietnam War. The reasons are fairly obvious: A)It did not occur in the Vietnam theater of operations. B) It did not involve combatants of the VC or NVA. C) It was an unbalanced action on the part of the Ohio National guard in which students protesting the Vietnam conflict were killed. To characterize the protesters as combatants is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.103.56 (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Figures for dead in Cambodia bombing campaign

The figures currently on this page state 40,000 but the consensus amongst historians is that it is many more. Yale states more than 100,000. I will compile a list of all the available figures and they will come in at more than 40,000. The last editor is accusing me of being dishonest but the fact is that using the figure of 40,000 is dishonest.Thoughts?Zrdragon12 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Stumink (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,191 bytes) (-143)‎ . . (Do not get rid of the 40,000. It is more reliable. Please do not edit war. Your also being dishonest because Kiernan's lowest figure is 50,000. Look at Cambodian civil war page and you'll see why these figure implausable." No his lowest figure is not 50,000 at all and if you read the link provided you would have seen that he has revised it upwards since Bill Clinton released more info about the bombing campaign. I quote: 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..Kiernan.Zrdragon12 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

W.J. Sampson estimated all deaths caused by the entire Cambodian civil war at 100,000 or less. Marek Sliwinski put the number at 240,000. Paige Johnson and Judith Banister described 275,000 as "the highest mortality we can justify." Therefore, the question is how many of these deaths can be attributed solely to American bombing, as opposed to the Khmer Rouge/Viet Cong/NVA/Lon Nol/Sihanouk/U.S. ground troops/South Vietnam. There is substantial evidence that the communists committed the majority of the killings: John M. Del Vecchio mentions that the North Vietnamese shelling of Baray killed perhaps 20,000 Cambodian civilians; reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities, from slowly sawing off the heads of POWs a little more each day to the shelling of Phnom Penh are even grislier than those of the Viet Cong (Donald Kirk wrote in the Chicago Tribune in 1974 that he "can hardly believe the depth of the cruelty of the Khmer Rouge"); the American bombing initially did not extend beyond 10 miles into Cambodia and it ended years before the civil war concluded. Kiernan's source is not of the same quality as peer-reviewed demographic studies, nor are its conclusions limited to "Operation Menu"--and Kiernan is not offering an estimate of his own. Demographers do not calculate based on the number of bombs dropped, and the old press reports Kiernan refers to are not necessarily reliable. Look at the memoirs of Chanrithy Him, Haing Ngor, Sam and Sokhary You, Someth May and Thida Mam, Vann Nath, Loung Ung, Sophal Leng Stagg, Paul Thai and Molyda Szymusiak: Not one mentions a single death due to American bombing. Bruce Sharp believes that Kiernan's estimate for civil war deaths--300,000--is "much too high". Patrick Heuveline, whose work Kiernan has praised, suggests only 200,000 civil war deaths. Craig Etcheson of the Documentation Center of Cambodia notes that their teams have uncovered 2 mass graves filled with the victims of American bombing, and 20,000 mass graves filled with victims of Khmer Rouge executions. Survivor interviews suggest a ratio of about 10 deaths under the Pol Pot regime for every one death during the civil war. The Menu bombings were but one of many American bombing campaigns; you have failed to produce any evidence that there exists a historical "consensus" to the effect that they alone were responsible for nearly all of the civil war deaths. The Menu bombings are an odd candidate to begin with, as they only targeted the Vietnamese and preceded the most serious combat by several years. It's likely that later American bombings accounted for more of the death toll; it appears that the worthless Trial of Henry Kissinger "documentary" has muddled the issue. While many baseless and arbitrary numbers are repeated on fringe blogs like "Third World Traveler", and apologists for the Khmer Rouge such as Michael Vickery favor higher estimates for the civil war, it's not clear that anything Clinton declassified requires demographers to reexamine their data. At best, we could consider adding 150,000 to the high end of the range, even though it applies to all of the American bombings; I cannot support deleting more credible sources with lower estimates.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed what is credible about the sources that are on that link for 40,000? You have a book from 1995 and that is before evidence what produced that Cambodia was bombed 5 times as much as thought before and you have a demographics study which I have looked at and it does not even mention deaths from bombings, so where exactly did you get that 40,000 figures, if it is not mentioned in the one source,is it in the other one? The old book from 1995? Please advise.I will point out that the piece by the sources satates that "This figure refers to the entirety of the US bombing of Cambodia, not just the Menu bombings per se " so it is not just covering Operation Menu but all the American bombing of Cambodia.. thus the deaths will be more.Zrdragon12 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sliwinski is the source for 40,000 deaths; the other sources are provided "for an overview of Cambodian civil war estimates". Why? Because if the civil war only killed 200,000 people, it is highly, highly unlikely that Operation Menu alone killed over 150,000 people. If you want to remove Sliwinski, you will need to establish why he isn't a reliable source; I'm not convinced that the year of publication is a major concern. His work is still relatively modern. Again, demographers do not factor the number of bombs dropped into some sort of equation to calculate the death toll. It's also worth noting that, among mainstream scholars, Kiernan clearly is the type that prefers lower estimates for the Khmer Rouge and higher estimates for the civil war. Kiernan is a reliable source, although the work you cited is not very persuasive; I cannot accept the removal of Sliwinski unless there is evidence that he is a fringe source, especially because there is substantial evidence that he is not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about Operation Menu but under the source as I have already stated it says that the figure includes all American bombing deaths on Cambodia so it is bound to be more.Sliwinski book is 1995 and therefore before Clinton released more documents stating that 5 times as many bombs were dropped on Cambodia by the Americans than previously thought. Now that says to me that Sliwinski is getting his info before that release so is basing his information on a false assumption.Anyway thanks for the replies,I am going to look into it and I will get back to you. I wonder if Sliwinski has ever revised his figures.Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to add your source and list the death toll as 40,000-150,000 if you would prefer.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok,please do that then. Thanks.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

Please, you should highlight the number of victims, it is almost invisible on the right side of the page. This article is not really objective. The number of victims should be one of the first information in the introductuion. Thank you!

I think you might have a point,there is no casualty section on that pageZrdragon12 (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of casualties in the entire article. Plus the section in the right part is incomplete : it ignores the casualties in Laos (which were in the tens of thousands). The article should present estimates from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.145.202.53 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky etc

I don't have a problem with the Chomsky source as such, though since it refers to a public press conference there should be no problem supplying other sources if required. The central problem with this edit is that a paragraph about what was happening in 1967 has just been dumped and replaced by one about events in 1969. The paragraph after that, which refers to 1967, thus comes to have a totally illogical relationship to the one that precedes it. It surely should not be difficult to give an outline of changing attitudes over the 1967-69 period, and this explain why initial acquiescence or tolerance of the attacks was changed to public condemnation: internal public unrest?; changing US methods?; the rise of support for communists in Cambodia? This is hardly an obscure topic in which sources are thin on the ground. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt the authenticity of the quote, since it was intended for domestic consumption, and Sihanouk talked out of both sides of his mouth. However, academic historians should be used to establish the quote's historical significance or lack thereof. The edit was sloppy, and not just for the reasons you mention; User:Balgill1000 deleted information from Pawns of War and Sideshow, apparently because he felt the primary source quote contradicted it, while injecting emotionally charged POV language about "criminal almost daily bombing". I should also note that I've taken the matter to RSN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It also links to the paragraph in a way which makes it nonsensical, because the second paragraph is written to respond to the first one that said there was no open condemnation, so not reads absurdly saying "but there was", after a reference to apparently strong condemnation. I have looked about for other sources of the passages quoted by Hermann and Chomsky, but can't find any initially. There are some non-reliable sources that suggest the press conference was for internal consumption, and that Sihanouk was saying something else entirely in other contexts. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The press conference is also discussed in Alex J. Bellamy in Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity (OUP), which cites Hermann/Chomsky. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging You might think that "criminal almost daily bombing" is is emotionally charged POV language, the fact is, that was the direct quote used by the Cambodian government to condemn the attacks. So you might personally disagree with the Cambodian governments assessment of the attacks, that was the language used by them. User:Paul Barlow I put the quote in that spot of the paragraph, because the beginning of the paragraph speaks about how Sihanouk was quiet about the bombings in 1969. I can work out the two paragraphs so it makes more sense, but it is not correct in its current form because it is incorrectly stating that Sihanouk didn't object when he clearly did. Balgill1000 (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As a possible compromise, I don't see any problem with citing Sihanouk's public opposition to the bombing, while also citing the position of some historians and U.S. officials that Sihanouk gave his tacit approval. That is enough to notify readers and allow them to investigate further if they wish. -Darouet (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Darouet above, and I will let User:TheTimesAreAChanging make the aforementioned changes first since they don't seem to like my changes. If it is not changed in a few days, then I will make the change myself.Balgill1000 (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)