Saddam and Pol Pot is a bad analogy

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Register Guard, Eugene, Oregon's local rag, commenting that I was personally not happy that Saddam was gone, not because he wasn't a terrible man, but that the consequences of Iraq being run by a terrible man were not as bad as having him removed have been.

Someone in Eugene bravely sent me an anonymous envelope, containing a clipping about Pol Pot and his murderous regime in Cambodia. The comment was, "Here's another one you can ad [sic] to your list of those who kept the 'lid' on."

Illogical thinking like that can, well, get you elected President of the United States. The analogue to Saddam in Cambodia is not Pol Pot, who came to power as the result of America's being unwilling to leave well enough alone, but Prince Sihanouk. Sihanouk headed a "neutral" regime that was too accommodating to North Vietnam for our tastes, so we ignored their neutrality and dragged them into the conflict. Sihanouk eventually lost control and was replace by Pol Pot.

Pol Pot is the analogue of someone yet to come to power in Iraq. Not a good analogue, because Pol Pot did control what everyone agreed was Cambodia, and it's unlikely that anyone will ever again assert overarching control of the old Iraq. There may not be anyone at all. This could be the Congo with oil.