at leaders don’t always have. Rational decision making requires quite a bit of time, which isn’t always an available luxury. It also requires a significant amount of information. In a situation like the one that arose immediately after September 11, 2001, the United States government had virtually no information about who attacked America. This made making a traditionally logical decision almost impossible. Even when there is available information, it is often distorted and incomplete. The idealist’s rational procedure makes the assumption that all knowledge, especially regarding objections and alternatives, of the situation are complete, true and unchanging. If such were the case, grave political decisions, like deciding to invade Iraq in 2003, may have been avoided.

Most citizens also like to believe those in power are basing decisions on national interests and objections. Anybody critical of the government, however, knows decisions originate from personal motivations and organizational interests. Alas those motivations are what most often shape choices about national goals. This is a problem because leaders hold their citizens lives in their hands. Thus, most people hope, at least in the case of war and foreign policy, that leaders have the people’s best interest at heart and are exhausting all possible alternatives. Unfortunately, the options considered are limited and none are very carefully analyzed.

In most societies, anytime a significant decision is made, the leader shares it with its citizens. Ideally this means the government effectively states and rationalizes the decision to rally support. In reality, however, those declarations are often baffling, conflicting and created for media consumption. Despite this, many citizens are happy to live life ignorantly and assume the bureaucracy of foreign affairs is carefully monitoring the choices being made. Ignorance is a danger to the nation because the bureaucracy often neglects managing decision implementation. After all, following the implementation of a choice the bureaucracy doesn’t usually properly evaluate the decision and if anything goes wrong people stop taking responsibility causing any needed corrections to be delayed.

In the defense of our world leaders, it is very difficult to make decisions rationally. Often political leaders are forced into situations that don’t have any appropriate options. Take, for instance, the example of Saddam Hussein who decided to lie to the world about the nuclear weapons he didn’t have. Looking back on this decision, it seems completely irrational. By implying that he had nuclear weapons he was bringing attention to himself which would lead to some hefty consequences. His calculations were not those of a completely crazy man but rather those of a man who had few alternatives. He decided to lie for several reasons. One was out of fear of attack by neighboring and rather unfriendly Iran. Another was out of the hope that if the world believed he had weapons they would leave him alone and let him make demands, as has been the case for North Korea and its rather infamous leader Kim Jong Il. Unfortunately Saddam’s plan backfired on him and he was invaded by the United States.

Another example of seemingly irratio