The other day I saw some headline about how we have to fight fire with fire (it was referring to political campaigns, not weapons, which in light of the US bombing Iran, seems an important clarification).
And my reaction was, "No one would fight fire with fire. You fight it with water." We don't have firemen going in and fighting forest fires with flame throwers. Fighting fire with fire is only a good strategy if you are trying to burn down the world.
That was my first thought. My second thought was that there is probably some etymological history here that would make it all make sense. And larks, there is!!!
The phrase dates back to Shakespeare. (Most things in English seem to be sourced from him or the Bible. Surely there were other sources?) In his day--and still today--they would create firebreaks. Meaning, they'd burn vegetation so that when the fire arrived, there was nothing left to burn and it would die. Fighting fire with fire.*
I'm not sure fighting fire with fire today has the same outcome. Firebreaks aren't focused on the fire itself, if that makes sense. They aren't attacking the fire, they are preventing it, by looking out towards other areas. It's preventative. Whereas, most of the time when we use the phrase today, it's not preventative. It's aggressive, attacking, and not really concerned with ending a conflict, so much as winning at all costs.
I vote we return to the original motive of the phrase. If we do, I think we'll be left with more of the world standing. And we'll all learn a bit about fire-fighting!
*You can find multiple sources that confirm this through a quick search on the internet.
