Analogies are potent tools for helping individuals to better understand the complexities of the world around them.  The problem is that analogies often over simplify and, even worse, can be just plain wrong.  Examples of both of these issues are found in Jesse Hathaway’s recent editorial.

Much of Hathaway’s historical premise is incorrect.  In 9 A.D., the Romans were not fighting in Germania to secure national security; they were fighting a war of conquest.  Furthermore, Rome was not a republican power anymore; it was an imperial empire in all but name.  Contrary to Hathaway’s assertion, it was the Romans that were autocratic, under Augustus, not the Germans.  The Germans themselves were not this “uncivilized” herd, as suggested, but rather had a vibrant and interesting culture, if less unified than their expansionist neighbor: Rome

The fault in Hathaway’s column goes beyond his painfully flawed knowledge of the Classical World.  His assertion that there is a clash of civilizations occurring and that the United States must learn from history or “fall” as the Romans did is troubling.  Does anyone believe that the United States will soon face conquest?  Even more important, what is this civilization the United States is clashing against?  Hasn’t Hathaway himself identified the enemy to be radical groups, terrorist organizations without borders?

There are dangers to the United States from radical groups but the key word there is “group,” not civilization.  How to deal with these groups is exceedingly complex and difficult.  Hathaway’s parallels fall apart upon closer inspection and his suggestion that the United States adopt more draconian measures to deal with these new threats is not only simple but may only lead to the perpetuation or increase in violence. Please, in the future, leave your jingoism at the door and perhaps consult a book, not Wikipedia, before you blather.