A Biography about Jim Thompson (2011)

The Ideal Man: The Tragedy of Jim Thompson and the American Way of War by Joshua Kurlantzick was published by John Wiley & Sons in 2011. As far as I know, it is only available as a hardcover book. There is no paperback version yet.

The main text is divided into sixteen chapters and an epilogue. The chapters do not have headings, only numbers, which is a bit strange. In each chapter the text is divided into several shorter sections by blank spaces, not by subheadings, which is also a bit strange and not so reader-friendly.

At the end of the book there are notes with references and an index. There is no bibliography where the four groups of sources used could be presented in a more systematic way.

What about illustrations? There are no illustrations in this book: no pictures, no drawings, and no maps. On the front cover of the dust jacket there is a picture of the main character Jim Thompson, who seems to be around forty years old when it was taken. That is all. There is no picture of the author, not even a small picture on the inside flap. I realize the text is important, but I still think it is unfortunate to publish a book without a single illustration.

Jim Thompson was born in the US in 1906. In the years before World War II he worked as an architect. During the war the joined the OSS (precursor of the CIA). In 1945, as the war was ending in Asia, he arrived in Thailand where his task was to contact and work with nationalists of French Indo-China (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia). When he left the agency, around 1947, he decided to stay in Thailand.

He founded a new company in order to revive the Thai silk industry, which was almost dying out, and after a while he decided to build a new home for himself. This task was completed in 1959, and he lived there for eight years, from 1959 to 1967. During a holiday in the Cameron Highlands of Malaysia in Easter 1967 he went for a walk, from which he never returned. He has not been seen or heard from again.

In this book Joshua Kurlantzick covers Jim Thompson’s life:

** His childhood and youth in the US, his education as an architect, and his life as a civilian in that country

** His work as a secret agent working for the OSS in France, the north of Africa, and in Thailand

** His life as a civilian in Thailand, including the Thai Silk Company, which is still in operation, his famous House on the Klong, which is now a museum open to the public, and his art collection, which is on display in his house.

** His mysterious disappearance in Malaysia in 1967

These four parts of his life are placed in their proper historical context when the author gives us a brief history of the US in the beginning of the 20th century, a brief history of Thailand, a brief history of Southeast Asia, including the Indo-China Wars, and a brief history of the Cold War between East and West.

A KEY ASSUMPTION

Kurlantzick’s account is based on a key assumption which he mentions several times: as the war was ending in 1945, US foreign policy in Southeast Asia had two distinct options:

** Option # 1 – in Thailand, support and work with liberal democrats – in French Indo-China, support and work with nationalists of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, who want to expel the French colonial power and establish new independent nations.

This option was in accordance with the Atlantic Charter of 1941, which had promised freedom to all the peoples of the world, including those living in colonies. Following this option would also mean that the US remained true to its own origin: before the US was established as an independent state, its population had been inhabitants of 13 British colonies.

** Option # 2 – in Thailand, support and work with anti-communist dictators – in French Indo-China, support and work with the French government, which is trying to rebuild its colonial empire in Asia – and if this fails, step in and replace the French.

This option would be a violation of the Atlantic Charter. It would also mean that the US would go against its own often-proclaimed principles of freedom and democracy for everyone.

As an exponent for option # 1 Kurlantzick picks Jim Thompson, a US citizen based in Thailand. The Thai politician Pridi Banomyong is used as a figure who wants to establish a liberal democracy in Thailand.

As an exponent for option # 2 Kurlantzick picks Willis Bird, another US citizen based in Thailand. The Thai general Plaek Phibulsonggram (aka Phibul) is used as a figure who wants to establish an anti-communist dictatorship in Thailand.

Is this assumption realistic? Did the US government really have these two options in 1945? If you ask me, the answer is yes. I think Kurlantzick is right on this point, but I realise many observers will say no. If you are one of them, you are not going to like this book very much, because this assumption is a key element of the whole account.

What happened is well known: the US rejected option # 1 and went for option # 2. In Thailand, Pridi was forced into exile, while Phibul turned the country into an anti-communist dictatorship, with US support. In Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, the French forces fought the first Indo-China War, which they lost in 1954, even though they had US support since 1950. The US replaced the French and fought the second Indo-China War, which they lost in 1975.

What if the US had listened to Thompson and tried to follow option # 1? What would have happened? Nobody can know. It was never tried. What we do know is that option # 2 was taken and the consequences were devastating. The peoples of Southeast Asia are still living with some of them today.

WHAT DO THE REVIEWERS SAY?

This book generated many reviews. More than a dozen are available online. Some are basically positive. Perhaps some reviewers are impressed by the amount of research that has gone into this book. I understand. At the same time I am disappointed to notice that many reviewers merely present the book and its message without really discussing it. They have no serious questions about the book. Here are a few examples:

** Sebastian Strangio, Asia Times Online, 4 November 2011

** Saksith Saiyasombut & Siam Voices, Asia Correspondent, 8 November 2011

** Geoffrey Cain, Washington Monthly, January-February 2012

** Tim O’Connell, Asian Review of Books, 19 March 2012

** Matthew da Silva, Happy Antipodean, 21 August 2012

** Larry Wallace, the Paris Review, 15 April 2013

Chris Baker reviews the book in the Bangkok Post, 30 January 2012. He complains about “the (slightly absurd) title and subtitle which are, perhaps, gifts from the publisher,” but otherwise his review is quite positive.

Other reviews are basically negative. The British magazine The Economist claims “The book … fails to explain why Jim Thompson was so fascinating” (12 November 2011).

Paul Dorset reviews the book in The Nation, 24 October 2011. He calls the book “a disappointing addition” to the already large library about Thompson and says the title is a misnomer: Thompson was not an ideal man; he was a man who had ideals. On this point Dorset is right. Referring to Thompson’s problems in the 1960s, he concludes his review with this statement: “He was lost, in most senses of the word, long before that Easter holiday in the Cameron Highlands.”

Patricia H. Kushlis reviews the book in Whirled View of 29 September 2014. The title of this blog seems to be a “smart” way of spelling “World View.” Like Chris Baker in the Bangkok Post and Paul Dorset in The Nation, she complains about the title of the book and she is right. Personally, I think the subtitle should be amended as well. Perhaps: “The Tragedy of Jim Thompson and American Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia.”

Jeffery Sng says “the book fails to show that Jim Thompson is historically important” (Inside ASEAN, 28 March 2014).

The most negative review I have seen is in the Wall Street Journal of 8 December 2011. Rufus Phillips says there is misleading information about Senator Joseph McCarthy’s activities in the US and misleading information about the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. Most importantly, he cannot accept Kurlantzick’s account of US foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

As a CIA case officer in Laos from 1957 to 1959, Phillips does have first-hand knowledge about the situation in Southeast Asia in the post-war period.

He says:

“Mr. Kurlantzick ably chronicles Thompson’s time in Southeast Asia but unfortunately attempts to make his life something it was not: a metaphor for what he thinks went wrong with U.S. policy in Southeast Asia.”

His review concludes with the following statement:

“In the end, Mr. Kurlantzick’s tendentious account of U.S. policy and actions is yet another example of developing a theory to explain history, then picking events and opinions mixed with facts to prove it. This is too bad, because Thompson’s life was compelling enough by itself.”

The sharpest review I have seen is in New Mandala, 24 May 2013. Mike Monsanto not only praises the positive aspects of the book; he also has some serious questions about it:

“Who, for example, were these Indochinese leaders with whom Thompson was in such close contact?  With a single exception, that of the Lao Issara leader [Thao] Oun Sananikone, Kurlantzick does not identify them.  Neither does he give us any sense of Thompson’s understanding of these leaders’ programs, of the inevitable rivalries among them, or for that matter of the language in which he communicated with them and with Pridi, though this was presumably French.”

He has more questions, but the list is too long. I cannot quote all of them here. I have quoted this passage, because it demonstrates that Kurlantzick does not always go deep enough; sometimes he is too superficial.

Thompson’s work with the nationalists from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia is mentioned several times (e.g. pp. 48-50 and pp. 55-57), but as Monsanto says: apart from Thao Oun Sananikone, there are no names. Why not?

According to Kurlantzick, there were many nationalists and they all went to see Thompson, because he was the only one who cared about them; the only one who understood them. Is this really true? Was Thompson really the only person in Thailand who was ready to talk to them? Perhaps this notion about his unique position existed only in his own mind. Perhaps Kurlantzick accepted Thompson’s notion without ever asking if it is true. I do not know the answer, but I think the question deserves to be raised.

The Ideal Man is an important work, but not everything in this book is as it should be. Some flaws have already been pointed out above. Now I have to mention a few additional flaws which bother me.

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

The dust jacket provides the following information:

“Joshua Kurlantzick writes regularly about Asia for Newsweek and the New Republic. He also contributes to Mother Jones, the London Review of Books, the New York Times, Foreign Policy, the Atlantic, and Time. In 2007, Yale University Press published his book on China’s soft power, Charm Offensive.”

While the list of publications is impressive, this brief biography is highly deficient. For instance, we are not told when and where he was born. Perhaps this is a secret. But what about his education? Where and what did he study? This should not be a secret, but it is not revealed. As far as I know, he is a journalist who has turned to writing history with this book, but he is not a professional historian, and it shows.

Kurlantzick is a Southeast Asia fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations. This fact is mentioned in several reviews of the book but not in the brief biography on the dust jacket. Perhaps he joined the CFR after the book went to press and just before it was published.

Wikipedia has a post about him. According to this post, he was born in 1976. There is a photo of him as well (see below). The post ends with the following statement:

“Kurlantzick has frequently been taken to task for alleged inaccuracies in his reporting, especially his preferred mode of first-hand accounts where the only support for his claims is in his notes.”

This warning is highly relevant for his biography of Jim Thompson, as I will show in the following sections.

FOUR GROUPS OF EVIDENCE

The Ideal Man is based on four groups of evidence: published books and articles; secret documents from the US government, now declassified; private letters written by Thompson, preserved by family or friends; and interviews with several witnesses, who were chosen because they are related to Thompson or because they are connected to the topics of the book in some other way.

In most cases, the author provides a name and a date for the interview. But apart from the author and the interviewee, nobody can verify the contents, because the interview is not a part of the public record.

It gets worse: in some cases, the author does not even provide a name, because it is a secret. Notes 14 and 15 on page 241 refer to a “Confidential CIA source, interview by author…” and note 19 on page 241 refers to a “Confidential State Department source, interview by author…”

For all I know, the author may have invented all the facts supported by these references. The process is easy. Step 1: he writes a statement that is just what he needs at this point in his account. Step 2: he supports this statement with a reference to a confidential source. What a trick: nobody can say if it is true or not! We have to take his word for it. We have to trust him. But can we?

I am not saying Kurlantzick has done this. But he might have. As you can see, the reader cannot know if the text is true and supported by actual interviews or if it is the product of the author’s vivid imagination.

Some writers who used this method have been exposed. A case in point: the US historian Stephen E. Ambrose (1936-2002) was famous for writing several books about Eisenhower. But in 2010 – a few years after his death - he was exposed as a fraud. For more information, see Tim Lacey, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Stephen Ambrose: A Warning to the Profession,” a blog posted on 19 April 2010.

A MIND READER

Kurlantzick seems to know everything about Thompson; not only what he did and said, but even what he was thinking. He is a mind reader, as we can see on page 91: “At times, Thompson wondered whether he would ever have a family of his own or whether he had given up any chance of that.”

There is something wrong with the way Kurlantzick works, the way he uses his evidence. With one exception, Kurlantzick never stops to evaluate his sources, never stops to discuss their credibility. He reports whatever he finds. His argument seems to be: if someone wrote it - or said it – well, then it must be true. Obviously, this is absurd.

A case in point: the son and the daughter of Willis Bird are interviewed about their father. They idolize him. What does this mean for the credibility of their statements about him? Kurlantzick does not even raise the question.

Thompson’s nephew, Henry, is mentioned and/or quoted no less than fifteen times. He is an important witness. But I wonder: how can the nephew know so much about his uncle? From 1945, the uncle was in Thailand, while the nephew was in the US. How did they communicate? By letter? By telephone? Or does the nephew have a vivid imagination? Even if the nephew said everything that is attributed to him in this book, there is no guarantee that it is true. Perhaps it is all in his mind?

Regarding the nephew, there is one exception. On page 78 Kurlantzick writes: “Thompson’s nephew Henry happened to be with him when he learned his friends had been killed.” In this case the nephew may be a reliable witness to Thompson’s state of mind, but in all other cases, it is difficult to understand how the nephew can know so much about his uncle.

THE DISAPPEARANCE

As stated above, there is one case where Kurlantzick tries to evaluate the evidence: when he covers Thompson’s mysterious disappearance in Malaysia in 1967. Several interpretations are presented in the book, and for once the author tries to discuss their credibility.

What happened? An accident? A suicide? A killing by the CIA? A contract killing ordered by someone in Thailand? Or something else?

On page 197 the author says it is possible to give “a speculative answer.” This answer comes on page 203 where he mentions the Thai resentment against Thompson. Some influential Thais were jealous of him because his Thai silk business was going well and because he had protected ancient works of art from damage and destruction.

[This topic is mentioned several times: pp. 125, 152, 154, 155, and 158.]

Thais could and should have started a silk company before Thompson came along, but they didn’t. Thais could and should have cared for ancient works of art before Thompson came along, but they didn’t.

Some Thais could not be happy for him and for Thailand. Instead they were jealous of him for doing what they should have done. His actions made them lose face, and for this he could not be forgiven. Fortunately, not all Thais are like that, but some are, and if they are highly influential, they can do something about it.

Perhaps Thai resentment against Thompson grew to the point where a contract killer was hired to take him out. To get rid of this annoying foreigner once and for all. On page 203 Kurlantzick mentions a contract killing in Bangkok and then he says: “Perhaps Jim Thompson fell prey to a similar set-up.”

This is as far as he is prepared to go. He could be right. Nobody can say he is wrong. Perhaps one day a definite answer can be given.

A FAMOUS EPISODE
On page 37 Kurlantzick covers events in 1941 and 1942: “Thailand’s ambassador to Washington did not deliver the country’s declaration of war on the United States.” The name of the ambassador is not given. This is strange, in particular because this person pops up later in the book, on pp. 47 and 65, and on both these occasions his name is given: Seni Pramoj.

But the reader cannot know that the Thai ambassador who is mentioned on page 37 and the Thai politician Seni who is mentioned on pp. 47 and 65 are one and the same person.

The story about Seni not handing the Thai declaration of war to the US secretary of state is a famous episode. It is found in several accounts. But a closer inspection reveals it is a myth. For details, see Thailand’s Secret War by E. Bruce Reynolds (HC 2005, PB 2010), pp. 19-20.

Kurlantzick never refers to this book in his notes. Surprisingly, he refers to an article by E. Bruce Reynolds published in 2002 (note 64 on page 238). In other words: he knows about Reynolds, but still fails to mention and use his book from 2005.

MINOR FLAWS

** On page 100 there is a misunderstanding. Kurlantzick writes: “Faced with the lesser of two evils, the US, as it often would, picked conservative autocrats over communists.”

Of course the US did not pick a communist. The set-up is wrong. What he should say is: the US picked conservative autocrats over liberal democrats. Why? Because liberal democrats were “neutral” and this position was considered half-way to communism.

** On page 203 Kurlantzick mentions the demonstrations in Bangkok in 1973. He says “the Thai military gunned down at least ninety prodemocracy protesters in the streets of Bangkok.” No source is given for this odd figure, which is too low. According to the Bangkok Post, the confrontation between the military and the demonstrators “culminated in the deaths of several hundred protesters.”

Patricia Kushlis mentions this flaw in her review. She also criticizes Kurlantzick for saying that the demonstrations took place in the summer of 1973, while they took place in October, but this accusation is unfounded. Kurlantzick never mentions a month or a season. He merely gives the year: 1973.

** On page 80 one word is missing. In what follows I have added the missing word in square brackets: “… the west did seem to [be] facing an existential crisis.”

** On page 172 we have the opposite problem: one word is printed, even though it should be deleted. In what follows I have typed the word which should be deleted with capital letters: “… if the US government made a decision, it was probably BE the right one.”

What a coincidence: the word “be” which is missing on page 80, appears on page 172. Lost and found!

** On page 182 the temperature in the Cameron Highlands is given in Fahrenheit. Why? Apart from the US, most countries of the world use the Celsius scale. 75 degrees Fahrenheit corresponds to 24 degrees Celsius. Why use only Fahrenheit? Why not use both? This would be the reader-friendly solution.

** The Hmong hill tribe of Laos is mentioned several times in the book. On page 213 Kurlantzick writes: “The Hmong refugees remained in Thai camps, with many ultimately departing for the United States, where they were finally granted refugee status.”

What about the Hmong who did not go to the US? What happened to them? Kurlantzick does not tell us anything about them. They were forcibly repatriated to Laos in 2008 and 2009, i.e. long before the deadline for his book, but this fact is not mentioned. For details about this episode, see the New York Times, 27 December 2009, and BBC news, 29 December 2009.

FALSE IMPRESSIONS

Jim Thompson’s lifestyle in Thailand is described in great detail. We are told he hosted dinner parties almost every night during which he would show his guests around his beautiful house on the klong and show them his impressive collection of ancient Southeast Asian art.

There are two problems here:

The first problem is that Thompson was not always in Bangkok. As Kurlantzick explains in other parts of the book, Thompson would often travel to the north of Thailand. And sometimes he would leave the country and go to Europe to promote his silk products or go to the US to visit his family and friends there. When he was not in Bangkok, he could not give dinner parties on a nightly basis. The author gives the reader a false impression with his talk about dinner parties almost every night.

The second problem is that Thompson’s beautiful house on the klong was not completed until 1959. He lived there for eight years, until 1967. But from 1945 to 1959, a period of fourteen years, he lived in another place. When the author talks about the guided tours and the art collection, he is deliberately vague about the time frame. He implies this went on from 1945, which is not true. He fails to point out that this could only happen between 1959 and 1967.

FAILURE AND SUCCESS

Jim Thompson was not an ideal man, far from it, but he was a man who had ideals, and he tried to make them come true. He urged the US government to work with the nationalists of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. He failed. The US sided with the French and went to war against the nationalists. This is the first tragedy of Jim Thompson.

In Thailand he wished to see a liberal democracy and he urged the US government to support this line. He failed again. His friend Pridi was forced into exile, while general Phibul turned the country into an anti-communist dictatorship, with US support. This is the second tragedy of Jim Thompson.

The Indo-China war caused death and destruction to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Thailand was deeply involved: many of the bombs that fell on French Indo-China were dropped by planes that came from US military bases in Thailand. This is the tragedy of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

However, as a business man, as an architect, and as an art collector, Thompson did not fail. His company created jobs for thousands of Thais. His house on the klong is a popular tourist destination in Bangkok. And his art collection, still on display in his house, is impressive. In these areas he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Perhaps his success in these areas was the reason for his mysterious disappearance in 1967.

TRYING TO IMPRESS

Kurlantzick likes to dwell on aspects of Thailand which are not important to his main topic. A case in point is the sunset which is described on page 133:

“While the sun set abruptly just after 6:30, going down in what seemed like seconds, as it always did in the tropics, Thompson would take two or three of his female dinner guests into a longtail canal boat and across the water, cameras around their necks, to see the silk village.”

Kurlantzick is right about the abrupt sunset, but not about the time. In Thailand, the difference between summer and winter sunset is not great, but there is a difference: during the hot and wet summer, the sun sets around 6:30, but during the cool and dry winter, the day is shorter and the sun sets around 6:00. Perhaps the author has only visited Thailand during the summer months and not during the winter months. Or, if he did, he failed to notice this difference between the two seasons.

Another example is Thai food which pops up throughout his book (pp. 6, 43, 44, 47, 57, 83, and 134). Why does he dwell so much on the sunset and the food? I think he is trying to impress the reader. He wants to convince the reader that his knowledge about Thailand is deep and solid. However, a close inspection of his book reveals a strange contrast:

Regarding the sunset and the food, Kurlantzick offers a wealth of details, even though this is not necessary at all (in addition, the information about the sunset is inaccurate). But when he has to deal with more important and more substantial topics, such as politics and ideology, he is often imprecise, vague, and superficial. Mike Monsanto notes the strange contrast in his review.

CONCLUSION

How many stars does this book deserve? It is easy to say something nice about this book. Many reviewers have already done so, and I agree with them, but only to a certain degree. This book is an easy read, and it provides a lot of useful information about Jim Thompson, about Thailand, and about Southeast Asia during the Cold War. But even though this book is an easy read, I cannot say it is well written and well done.

There are flaws. Some are minor, but others are fatal. A large part of this book is based on interviews. Apart from the author and his interviewees, no one can know what was said during these sessions. Making statements based on interviews with anonymous sources is even more problematic.

As stated earlier, Kurlantzick is a reporter who has turned to writing history with this book. He is not a professional historian. Perhaps this is why he never stops to evaluate his sources and never stops to discuss the credibility of his evidence. This is a fatal flaw.

The author might try to defend himself by saying that he checked the credibility of each and every source before using it in his book. But this argument will not help him, because the discussion about the credibility of a source should not take place in secret, in the author’s mind; it should take place in the book.

The author should share this discussion with the reader, so the reader knows what is going on and understands why one source may be more reliable than another.

As you can see, I have mixed feelings about this book. One part of me would like to give it a high rating because of the positive elements. But another part of me cannot ignore the negative elements I have documented in this review: the title is unfortunate; there is no bibliography; there are no illustrations; and the text is flawed in several ways.

I wish to recommend this book, but I have strong reservations when I do so. The Ideal Man is an important work with some serious flaws, and therefore I think it deserves a rating of three stars.

PS # 1. Regarding Jim Thompson’s home in Bangkok, see The House on the Klong by William Warren (text), Jean-Michel Beurdeley (text) and Luca Invernizzi Tettoni (photos) (EDM Books, 2014). This book is recommended and this place is worth a visit, if you are in Bangkok.

PS # 2. The following book is written by one of Thompson’s friends: Jim Thompson: The Unsolved Mystery by William Warren (EDM Books, 1999, reprinted 2014).

PS # 3. Solved! The Mysterious Disappearance of Jim Thompson by Edward Roy de Souza was published in 2010.

PS # 4. Jim Thompson farm, located in Pak Thong Chai district ca. 80 km southwest of Nakhon Ratchasima (usually known as Khorat), is open to the public for only one month a year. The current season runs from 13 December 2014 to 11 January 2015. This place is worth a visit, if you are in Thailand at the right time. However, it is difficult to get there by public transport. You will need to have your own car to get to this destination.

* * *

Joshua Kurlantzick,

The Ideal Man: The Tragedy of Jim Thompson and the American Way of War,

John Wiley & Sons, hardcover, 2011, 264 pages 

* * *

Here is a picture of the author:

Joshua Kurlantzick (born 1976)

(borrowed from Wikipedia)

* * *