With Kissinger’s passing a lot has been said about the US’ bombing campaign in Cambodia, but I wondered why the US would pursue a strategy that would be so ineffective and antagonize the people of Cambodia. Don’t get me wrong, the US didn’t have to respect Cambodian territorial integrity after Cambodia had become a base of the Viet Cong but why not just send troops in and fight the Viet Cong?
7 comments
>Why did the US bomb Cambodia?
Because that’s where the enemy was.
Because the Cambodian government was Communist aligned and favorable to the North Vietnamese side and their doctrine allowed North Vietnamese forces to move soldiers and material through their territory to try to escape being targeted by the US and other forces.
International treaties on wars allow targeting of technically neutral countries when they do things like this. You’re even allowed to attack legitimate military targets in nations outside the conflict as long as they are supplying military equipment to belligerents.
People who make the most noise about war crimes generally don’t know the legal landscape regarding wars in the first place.
Would sending troops in have been much better? They still would have been supported by bombing.
You’re going to get overly simplified answers here, unfortunately. The reasoning is born out of the convoluted mess that was the Vietnam War and the late stages of the Cold War at large. A starting point would be the discussion of what led into [Operation Menu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu#Background), the specific campaign that did the bombings.
Something that OP and a lot of the answers here are missing is that the US did send troops into Cambodia.
This seems less like a question and more like a lecture on military strategy and international relations.
Was this before or after the Cambodian Genocide?