Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare [Hardcover]

I approach this review with a background of five years of volunteer work in Cambodia (1995-2000) and marriage into a Khmer family. This is the best book I have yet read on the entire history of the Khmer Rouge years. It is more (fortunately) than a biography of Pol Pot -- it is just as much a history of Cambodia and and examination of its peoples' character, and shorter biographies of other prominent Khmer figures, especially King Sihanouk. The author scrupulously avoids the oversimplifications and falso moralizing of most books about Cambodia -- the ones that say either (1) the Khmer Rouge were entirely America's fault, (2) entirely Nixon's fault, or (3) entirely Kissinger's fault -- choose one. He carefully explores, among other things, American policy toward and conduct in Cambodia in the period leading up to 1975 in a thorough and neutral manner, with interesting suggestions on the significance of this and many other topics. In addition, the author's style is fluid and transparent, and he has done his homework. This is the best book about Cambodia I have ever read, and I have read all the ones I have been able to lay my hands on. Buy it even if you think you have no interest in the subject, or know it too well already -- you will be pleasantly surprised and will enjoy the book immensely.

Philip Short refers to his book on Mao in his preface to "Pol Pot:Anatomy to a Massacre" and, while acknowledging Mao's extraordinary beastliness (the man was probably responsible for over 50 million deaths) he highlights Mao's pretentions to greatness not unlike Napoleon's or Alexander's. That is not the case with Pol Pot. He did not fight an honorable war against a brutal invader, like Mao did with the Japanese. Instead, he led to his Cambodia's occupation by the hated Vietnamese, who had been his paymasters for a long time. Pol Pot did not succeed in brutally modernizing his country's industry, like Stalin in the Soviet Union or Mao in China. Instead, he pulled it right back into the stone age. Like his worst predecessors in genocide, he never learned from his mistakes. Instead, he kept his habit of ordering executions, a habit which eventually led to his imprisonment by his surviving henchmen (who feared for their lives) and some sort of trial. And his corpse was not preserved like Mao's or Lenin's. Instead, it was burnt with old tires and mattresses.

Short's book would have been very short (and uninteresting) indeed if he had confined himself to Pol Pot. Instead, he wrote a veritable tableau of Cambodian history from WWII to our days. 1950s Cambodia comes across as a Ruritarian kingdom ruled by the beguiling Norodom Sihanouk. Sihanouk is one of history's true survivors (the man is still around!). One would need to look to Mitterrand or Fidel Castro for equivalent types who were able to survive and even thrive in impossible conditions, turning their alliances as they saw fit with no sense of shame. Sihanouk is in a fact a much more attractive character than Pol Pot, who is opaque, a mere cypher in some ways.

Saloth Sar, who would later become Pol Pot, came from what might be regarded as the upper middle class (his sister was a concubine to a Cambodian king- not Norodom), although his family wasn't rich. He was a mediocre student, and in many ways he would be a mediocrity all his life. His strength was his inscrutability. He kept a constant Buddha-like smile, and he never lifted his voice even when ordering the execution of close associates. The Cambodian Communist Party (later known as the Khmer Rouges) was fostered by Vietnamese logistical support, although Pol Pot's career was a long attempt to break free of the control of this "fraternal" party. The Communists' goals were fostered by the incompetent intervention of greater powers, some colonial, like France, some regional like Thailand and Vietnam, some global, like the US, the Soviet Union and China. Virtually all of them (most without realizing it) did their utmost to help Pol Pot reach power and wreck Cambodia. Particularly obtuse was American intervention in helping strongman Lon Nol in overthrowing Sihanouk. This threw the mercurial Sihanouk into Chinese hands and then turned him into Pol Pot's associate, helping to legitimize Khmer Rouge presence among royalist and superstitious peasants.

Short writes that Pol Pot's brutality was purely Cambodian (which should be annoying to all armchair Buddhists in the US and Europe) and that his actions were not caused in any meaningful way by the American intervention. Be that as it may, it is hard to image Cambodia falling to Pol Pot's disorganized hordes if Sihanouk had remained in power. Short also writes that the Khmer's millennial dictatorship, which was much more extreme than anything seem previously, except perhaps the Paris commune in 1870-1871 or Münster under Jan van Leiden in 1535, was also quite chaotic. Brutality was entirely random and without reason or rhyme. For all Pol Pot's paranoia and total disregard for human niceties, he was unable to turn the Khmer Rouge into a unified iron-clad party, like Stalin did with the Soviets. Even after his brutal purges, the party presence was highly regional. Also, the Khmer's racial policies against the Cham (muslim Cambodians) and the Vietnamese were worthy of Milosevic or Saddam Hussein. Pol Pot truly married the worst in both communist and nazi rules.

Pol Pot's life was unmarred by honor or greatness. Short brings to life the extraordinary circumstances that allowed this ordinary man to unleash the hounds of hell among his countrymen. I only regret that he wasn't tried like a war criminal and hanged from the tallest steeple in Angkor Vat. And some of his associates (like Hun Sen) are still in power.

Of course, this isn't just an account of Pol Pot the person, it necessarily has to be an overview of the dreadful Khmer Rouge. It is, in fact, a very gripping read. 450 pages in couple of days. But the author's conclusions are very disturbing.

THere are several questions that ANY book on Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge must answer, and Short does answer them, but not straightforwardly. Let's take a look at some examples of such questions, and Short's answeres:

1.Why did Khmer Rouge take everything to extreme?

a. Because Khmeres traditionally tend to take everything to extremes.

b. KR leaders were fans of utopian socialists when they studied in Paris, and were trained by head-strong idealist (but really unpractical and incompetent in real life) students in paris. They just caried it out simplistically.

b. Khmeres are notoriously lazy, and they wouldn't work unless they are forced.

2. Why did KR kill so much?

a. Oh, that was not their intention. They just wanted to extract confessions, or to apply strict morale in the party. Everyone just happened to die.

b. Because Khmere tradition holds that people never change, any attempts of re-education was never seriously considered.

c. KR soldiers were completely uncivilized peasants, and they can't handle complicated stuff. Killing is clear and easy. So they did.

3. Why didn't people revolt to such atrocity?

a. It was Khmere Bhuddist tradition to accept desitiny and authority and fate.

b. Khmers didn't have much of a community in the first place, so there were no serious effort

c. Every single power in Cambodia was extremely atrocious, including the ancient Angkor, Sihanouk, Vietnamese, etc. So they were used to it.

You see the problem; Short attributes almost everything to the national tendency or cultural tract of Khmer people. In the epilogue, Short says that you shouldn't make such simplistic connections. But, that's exactly what he does throughout the book. In the opening, he cites an example of a very sophisticated and westernized Cambodian Women. She found out that her husband (high ranking official) had a lover, so she got her caught and poured huge amount of acid on her, quietly enjoying the view. Short says, this mentality, where even a decent amount of western education can't tame the cruel and horrible hatred burning behind, is the key to understanding Khmer Rouge atrocity. After reading, I wasn't quite sure how this relates, but Short's message is clear; it's in their blood.

I do have some sympathy with this view, or at least the lure of such an argument. If you did any business in Cambodia, it'll make you want to scream every day. But I think Short yields too easily to that temptation. I also agree with the Washington Post review above. The book often reads like an apology for Pol Pot, which is disturbing.

However, as mentioned, it's a gripping read, and a very good overview of the Cambodian situation in 1960-1990. The whole thing was so byzantine, it was hard to understand who was sleeping with whom. This book does put you in proper perspective (and it tells you that basically everyone was sleeping with everyone at one time or another). Simplistic views that blame a single bad guy (like the US bombardent was THE cause, or Vietnam was cruel, or this and that) will be thoroughly discredited. It's a depressing read, also. Cambodia was always used as a pawn of international po,itics. China, USA, Vietnam, France, and Sihanouk, all lended hands to Khmer Rouge in a direct manner Sihanouk today pretends that he was innocent; No. His incompetent bloody rule sowed the seeds for many of the things to come. I don't know what anyone at any stage could have done to stop any of this.

But the most frightning part is the lack of depth in Khmere Rouge actions. None of the KR leaders had any practical work experience, much less any ability to plan military operations, build infrastructure, or run a country. As a result, the whole regime simply moves to the most simplistic solution that you could ever devise. For that amount of killing, you'd expect some deep but twisted ideals or conspiracy theories. There aren't any. The whole thing is like a high school play, and its scary.