Decision-making is a core part of the working of the human brain because it enables someone to reason critical and make judgement regarding an important issue. It is especially important when the decision taken will involve human lives because the thinking process could have massive consequences to human life as it the case in saving lives (Beach " Connolly, 2010). An equally daunting task can be the judgment that a leader takes when the nation’s security and lives are at stake particularly when there is an imminent attack that is anticipated. The political dilemma by director Roger Donaldson in his movie Thirteen Days elaborates the importance of effective decision making within a limited amount of time that ensures that the president is responsible for the mistakes that were taken in the course of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The key element that is noted from the movie is that the decision-making techniques that were used were based on impulse thinking about the issue at stake. It turns out that the key issue was not the menace of the Russians but rather, the political pressure that appeared to define every key decision that was taken. In the end, the integrity of Kennedy’s decision-making ability is compromised as it turned out that his advisors played a key role. President Kennedy and his advisors were having apparent difficulties with decision making because they subjected themselves to be put under pressure. It thus ended in the president substituting his liberal principles as enshrined in the constitution and instead take on the subjective advisers who were controlled by the emotions of the war, which made the whole endeavor extremely difficult.
President Kennedy initially perceived the situation as much critical especially when the intelligence data about missile installation is first presented. He was under pressure because he thought that the threat that was posed was immense. However, he seemed to underestimate the risk that was associated with sending a surveillance that was lone in the mission. The result was that when he first presented the installation, the Air Force U-2 reconnaissance was brought down and in the process, killing the pilot. His advisors however knew how much risk was posed and they tried to advise the president to act brutally considering that nuclear action and missiles were involved. They had advised for measures to avoid the invasion but the President was reluctant about the whole issue as Kennedy was destined to ensure that the US was not going to allow a missile threat. Overall, the President’s decision style as a leader when talking to the Joint Chiefs was consultative but he appeared not to take into account the role of joint-decision making in such a crisis.
The President’s decision making style changes as the crisis progresses because he realized that he was pressured for time and that there was an intense pressure from the military. The result was that the President prevented the attack of Cuba by sending his brother Robert F. Kennedy to meet with the Soviet ambassador. It is noted, however, that some characters have an influence on President Kennedy’s decisions. They were pushing for immediate action from the military because they had the backing of the defense force and it was only Kennedy who appeared not determined to ensure that the action was performed.
The frame of reference and decision making style of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was thus more associated with impulsive thinking as opposed to looking at the broader picture of what they anticipated. They seemed to focus on stopping the missile invasion and they saw Kennedy as an impediment. They thus opted to use a back-channel form of communication but held that the US was not going to invade Cuba. What shapes their perceptions of President Kennedy and this crisis was the fact that it appeared Kennedy was underestimating the possible nuclear war in a nuclear age that was impending especially when it was two decades after the Second World War. Overall, the flow of reliable and verifiable information affects decisions made by Kennedy and his advisors in notable ways. For instance, Kevin Costner calls the pilot who had gone to Cuba to lie to the President that the chain of the country and the nation’s security was at stake (Donaldson, 2000). The information is thus not much reliable because the military was hell-bent to lure the President into waging a war using unverifiable data.
Another significant feature is that the dilemmas regarding the bombing of Cuba was the primary cause of tension in the decision making process between the President and his advisors. The chief of staff had all agreed in a unanimous base to bomb Cuba and then proceed with an invasion. Kennedy was not of the opinion for the move and decided to postpone military action because he suggested that a blockade was preferred as he wanted the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to remove the nuclear missiles. It was the cause of tension between the two parties which needed to be moderated by the leader of a group. The military leader was supposed to have been the mediator but instead, they are also misrepresented by the director of the film.
The president cites lessons learned from his reading of the classic “The Guns of August” because he thought that the events were similar to what caused the First World War. It does that tell us that a leader’s decisions are influenced by the previous experiences in dealing with a current situation because he could relate the two occasion and determined that they were not much different only that nuclear weaponry was involved this time. It is also worth noting that the ethical considerations in the decisions by Kennedy pointed out by Russian Foreign Minister Anatoly Dobrynin toward the end of this movie show that the President was acting out of wisdom. In the end, Dobrynin affirmed that it was important for the US to remove the missiles it had placed in Turkey at the boundary with the Soviet Union. It shows that both Kennedy and Dorbyrin were acting out ethically and trying to avoid a war.
Overall, if I was President Kennedy, the major lessons learned from decision-making and leadership during this crisis is that the role of the advisors plays a key role hence the need to build a bond of trust with those around the presidency. The other major lesson is that consultation is key especially with the enemy because it appears that while war may seem inevitable, there is always room for dialogue. Thus, given the choice, I would have chosen to be President Kennedy because he was still the ultimate decision-maker who represented the US interests and whose wisdom ensured that peace prevailed and that the nuclear missiles were not launched.
References
Beach, L. R., " Connolly, T. (2010). The Psychology of Decision Making (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Donaldson, R. (2000). Thirteen Days. USA: New Line Cinema.
