Eagles and Owls

A quote from an article in the World Policy Journal evoked thoughts of conflicts around since the time of the ancient Greeks.

“Eagles and owls, in his depiction, claw for control over American foreign policy. The eagles, of whom the most forceful voice is the president himself, are “unilateralists with attitude,” motivated “by an overriding belief in the potency of missionary rationales for and military solutions to the challenges of global insecurity.” The owls, by contrast, stand for “muscular global law secured by cooperation and global governance, on enforced collective security measures rather than unilateral American might.” The eagles, he allows, are in one sense right: American preponderance in the various dimensions of global power “means there can be no viable world without America: no prosperity for the poor, no rule of law for nations, no justice for peoples,no peace for humankind.” The converse, he believes, is also true: “There can be no viable America without the world: no safety for American citizens, no security for American investors, no liberty for American citizens, unless there is safety, security, and liberty for all.” – David C. Hendrickson talking about Benjamin R. Barber’s “Fear?s Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy”

Which reminded me of a divine policy conflict between “Eagles”* and “Owls”.

Athena and Ares

Athena was the patron of strategy in battle, wisdom, justice and law while Ares was typified by running into conflict blindly (correction through show of strength) and then being surprised when things didn’t go his way (something tells me that there are plenty of Ares worshippers in the West Wing right now). I hope to encounter more policy “owls” in the future.

*in traditional Greek mythology the eagle was a symbol of Zeus, so for this analogy to be more accurate it would have to be “vultures” and “owls” which I think in some ways fits even better, but then I didn’t write the book.

Tags: Neopaganism