My friend, Irene Hahn (who is almost as much a curmudgeon as I, which is why I like her so much), posted the following comment on this piece on the "Bread and Circuses" blog:

Harris' comparison is quite flawed -- if not a deliberate distortion -- when he writes: "For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself."

1. It was not a war on terror after a "profound psychological blow", it was a matter of simple economics. The overall disruption of grain delivery was the reason for proposing the law (ignoring for a moment that it does seem to be clear that Pompey was behind the bill). Nor does it seem clear from the sources whether Gabinius introduced his bill before or after the pirates' assault on Ostia.

2. Gabinius was neither the first nor the last to propose a law that "fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect", there were worse ones that furthered the demise of the republic.

The entire exercise was one more step in Pompey's personal career, which then led to the command against Mithradates, which was what he wanted after all. The war against pirates as well as the re-ordering of the east after Mithradates' death were brilliantly executed: Pompey excelled in administrative tasks. And after all of this, Pompey became a privatus again for a while.

I'm sick and tired of the tired cliché of "history repeating itself"!

Right on, Irene!