Bush: No Trajan

So writes Gary Leupp, and I doubt anyone--even Harriet Miers--would disagree with his assessment:

...if America is comparable to Rome, George Bush is surely no Trajan...

And while Leupp cites the dangers in drawing analogies, his short article is worth reading whether or not you're drawn to history--and some things can't escape comparison:

Trajan had not gone in to the war intending to provoke rebellions or terrorism. His ostensible reason was to punish Parthia for political interference in the kingdom of Armenia, which Rome considered part of its sphere of influence. But Dio Cassius called this a "pretext" and declared that Trajan simply wanted "to win renown." Julian Bennett in his recent biography of Trajan agrees with this assessment (Trajan, Optimus Princeps: A Life and Times, 1997).

In 117 the proud emperor wisely elected to withdraw from Mesopotamia, and died in retreat in Cilicia. His adopted son and successor, Hadrian, returned Mesopotamia to Parthia the following year. "Thus it was," wrote Dio, "that the Romans, in conquering Armenia, most of Mesopotamia, and the Parthians, had undergone severe hardships and dangers for naught." But as historian B. W. Henderson put it, "it was very wise to abandon what could not be kept."

"Win renown"...sounds a lot like "I'm a war president."