Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.
I don't think that makes sense - they only bombed a small percentage of Cambodia but no doubt the turmoil helped Pol Pot get into power.