It involves a full analysis of all possible factors and several steps that are objective and lead to a well thought out decision. President Obama’s decision fits into the rational comprehensive model because the President had to act quick but by looking at the potential risks that the Sunni militant’s threat posed and the advantages and disadvantages of the White House decision on the threat. President Obama satisficed in his decision to send airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops of food and water.
President Obama’s decision was made after intense deliberations over the militant’s threat on the Kurdish Capital, Erbil to ensure that the threat did not result to a genocide situation. After being informed about the situation by the chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President did not make the decision straight away. He engaged in crisis meetings with his security and intelligence advisers on the situation, the choices that he had to consider, the advantages and disadvantages of these choices and how each of these choices would have affected the militants, the people in Erbil and the United States of America. These deliberations helped the president make the decision on the issue that was urgent by virtue of the fact that many people were at risk of losing their lives and the danger of mass property destruction (Landler, Rubin Mazzetti & Cooper, 2014).
President Obama’s first analysis was the risk that the threat posed. American citizens comprising of diplomats and business people in Erbil were at risk. The local people in Erbil were also at risk. The businesses and properties in Erbil were at risk of destruction from the militants. Most importantly, the decision that the white house was going to make could put Obama’s political career at risk but people’s lives and destruction of mass property were more important that President Obama’s political career.
President Obama’s decision after the deliberations with security and