Our unexploded bombs in Southeast Asia from 50 years ago still kill people today
Imagine airplanes dropping bombs every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 long years. This was the reality for Laos, a country scarred by a secret war most Americans never knew about.
My parents, age 14 at the time, were forced to endure the destruction and displacement of their community, its people and its religious sites. From 1964 to 1973, the U.S. secretly dropped at least 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos during 580,000 bombing missions, making it the most bombed country per capita in history.
Although I wasn't born during this war, I inherited its consequences. As a child, I witnessed my father, a surgeon, operate on countless victims of unexploded ordnance accidents. One was my classmate, a five-year-old little girl. The imminent dangers forced my family to flee in 1990 when I was only six years old.
In 1971, the so-called 'Secret War' in Laos was revealed to Congress, thanks to the courage of Fred Branfman and Bouangeun Luangpraseuth, who collected harrowing survivor testimonials. Yet it took two more decades before the U.S. began allocating funds to clean up its mess. In 1993, funding remained under $3 million, barely a drop compared to the $50 billion it had cost to bomb a neutral country against which we never declared war.
Today, millions of unexploded bombs remain, posing a deadly threat to children and their families. An estimated one-fourth of Laos is contaminated and less than 10 percent has been cleared. This burden hinders all aspects of life for the people of Laos, not only safety, but the long-term economic development.
As we commemorate World Refugee Day on June 20, we also recognize two other important dates: 50 years since the end of the Vietnam War and 50 years since the largest refugee resettlement wave in U.S. history — a direct result of America's military actions in Southeast Asia.
The Vietnam War affected not just the U.S. and Vietnam, but also Laos and Cambodia. Instead of celebrating our collective gains of peace with former adversaries, President Trump took office announcing a 90-day foreign aid freeze on January 20. All U.S.-funded programs were issued a stop-work order, including life-saving de-mining initiatives in Laos.
This was no insignificant matter. During the freeze, there were nine casualties in Laos from unexploded ordnance, including the death of a 15-year-old girl.
Thanks to persistent advocacy efforts from former U.S. ambassadors, veterans, youth and strong bipartisan Congressional support, funding for unexploded ordnance programs has resumed. but the damage during the halt is irreversible, and the trust between our country and the region is fragile.
To its credit, the U.S. has worked to resolve the enduring legacies of war — efforts that have saved lives, supported vulnerable communities, and strengthened diplomacy. Foreign aid is a strategic investment in our nation's long-term interests and global stability. Nowhere is this more evident than in Southeast Asia, where U.S. assistance has shown clear and lasting benefits: improved safety, stronger economies, and deeper cooperation between nations.
The U.S. began its post-war engagement by focusing on the recovery of Americans missing in action in 1985. The first American investigative team was approved by the Laotian government well before Laos and the U.S. normalized relations. The American team traveled to my childhood home, Pakse, Laos, to recover the remains of 13 service members lost in a 1972 plane crash. Since then, the U.S. has recovered more than 280 of the MIAs in Laos. This collaboration became the cornerstone for broader initiatives, such as the removal of unexploded ordnance and education about the dangers of explosive remnants of war.
These preventative efforts, combined with de-mining, have led to a dramatic drop in casualties in Laos, from more than 300 annually to 60 or fewer in the last decade.
Recognizing the value of these efforts, the U.S. now invests in similar programs globally and is the world's largest supporter of humanitarian de-mining, with more than $5 billion invested to date.
These programs prove what long-term commitment and international cooperation can achieve — helping war-torn communities rebuild, heal, and thrive.
As a former refugee, I view World Refugee Day as not just a day of reflection, but a reckoning — a test of our values, of whether we are willing to do right by those still living with the consequences of our past actions.
If America is to lead with morality, it must continue investing in the recovery of countries like Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. That means sustained funding and genuine partnership — not the politics of the moment, but a humane foreign policy shaped by the lessons of our past.
In the end, this is not only about Southeast Asia. It is about who we are and who we choose to be. America's legacy should not be measured by the bombs we dropped, but by the lives we choose to heal.
Sera Koulabdara is CEO of Legacies of War and co-chair of the War Legacies Working Group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
7 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
3 in 4 want legally required, publicly disclosed presidential health tests: Survey
Three in four Americans want health test requirements for presidents that would be released to the public, a new survey released on Friday found. Seventy-four percent of respondents agreed there should be legal requirements for the sitting president to share health records, in an Axios/Ipsos poll, and 72 percent of respondents thought most elected officials aren't honest about their own health. Additionally, 81 percent of respondents said there should be age limits in place for federal officials, including presidents, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. Only 40 percent of respondents said former presidents should legally have to share health records. The issue of health and cognitive abilities of sitting presidents has been in the spotlight since former President Biden's disastrous debate in June and eventual decision not to run for reelection. He was 82 when he left office and recently announced he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Earlier this week, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans accused former Biden Cabinet officials, Democratic members of Congress and the media of participating in a massive 'cover-up' to hide what they claim was the former president's obvious and alarming cognitive decline during his final two years in office. President Trump, who just turned 79 last week, is the oldest president to be inaugurated. He underwent an annual physical exam in April and his physician wrote in a memo that he was in 'excellent health.' The memo confirmed that Trump took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a test commonly used to detect memory issues or cognitive impairment, and scored a 30 out of 30. Since he first left office in 2020, Trump had released limited information about his physical health. His campaign released a letter in November 2023 from his personal physician, with little specifics. Nikki Haley, Trump's former U.N. ambassador who challenged him in the 2024 GOP primary, called for cognitive tests for politicians over 75. 'To most Americans, this is common sense. But many political and media elites scoff at these ideas,' she wrote in May 2023. The survey was conducted June 13 to 16 and included 1,104 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of +/-3.3 percentage points.
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump 'doesn't need permission' from Congress to strike Iran, expert says
Print Close By Alex Miller Published June 20, 2025 While lawmakers argue over their position in the command chain as President Donald Trump mulls a possible strike on Iran, one expert believes that the president is within his constitutional authority to move ahead with a bunker-busting bomb. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are embroiled in debate over where they are in the pecking order. Some argue they should have the sole authority to authorize a strike, let alone declare war, while others believe that is within Trump's purview if he wanted to join Israel's bombing campaign against Iran. 'INSTINCTS FOR RESTRAINT': SENATE DIVIDED OVER WHO GETS TO DECLARE WAR The predominant argument on the Hill is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, a legal scholar who helped to craft the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorized the usage of the U.S. armed forces to engage with the entities that then-President George W. Bush believed were behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City, argued that there was a difference between Congress' constitutional authority to declare war and the president's authority to use force abroad. "The position we took then, I think, is the same one that Trump should take now," John Yoo told Fox News Digital. "As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies." THUNE WARNS IRAN SHOULD RETURN TO NEGOTIATING TABLE 'IF THEY'RE SMART' The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. Nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles. Yoo agreed that the Constitution was clear that Congress has the sole authority to declare war, which effectively changes the legal status of the country. However, he countered that "the framers did not think that language meant that the President and Congress are like the two weapons officers on a nuclear sub and have to turn the keys at the same time to use force." "The founders were very practical men, and they knew that Congress is slow to act, that Congress is a large body that deliberates, but it's the president who acts swiftly and decisively in defense of the nation," he said. Adding fuel to the debate in Washington are a pair of resolutions in the Senate from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and the House, from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump's power and reaffirm Congress' constitutional authority. 'ANOTHER ENDLESS CONFLICT': DEMOCRAT ECHOES TRUMP'S ANTI-WAR STANCE AS MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS ESCALATE Yoo said that the resolutions appeared to be forms of "political opportunism" and noted that when former President Joe Biden wanted to send aid to Ukraine, when former President Barack Obama engaged abroad or when Trump authorized a drone strike to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, there was no resolution demanding Congress have a say. "People on the Hill are conflating what's constitutionally necessary with what's politically expedient," Yoo said. "Two very different things." Congress' real power over war, he said, was the power of the purse, meaning lawmakers' ability to decide whether to fund the Pentagon and military in their appropriations process. Republicans are currently working to ram Trump's "big, beautiful bill" through Congress and onto his desk by Independence Day. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Included in the colossal bill is roughly $150 billion in funding for the Defense Department. "If Congress really doesn't want us to, doesn't want Trump to, get deeper involved in the Israel-Iran war," Yoo said. "All they got to do is not fund the military." "The ironic thing is, you have people who are voting to give extra tens of billions of dollars to the Defense Department, who are then turning around and complaining that they don't have the ability to vote on war," he said. "Every time they vote for funding, they're voting to make war possible." Print Close URL
