When there is an issue that needs to be discussed in regards to the foreign policy, each facet of the process serves their own agenda before looking at the overall responsibility of the decision. In this regard, it is evident that each of the working unit feels an essential player in the process and seeks to safeguard the interests of the particular arm of the state. This is both beneficial and detrimental to the presidential power and ability to make decisions. For the latter, the best decision is reached at, and a decision that favors all involved departments and thus the state. As for the former case, the solution that is realized is largely as a result of compromised standards, and conflicts amongst the involved officials. There is diversification of interests amongst the parties, some of whom may have undue influence thus negatively affecting the process and wasting more time in the same.
Foreign policy bureaucracy suppresses rationalism in decision making. This is again influenced by the influence of a particular department in policy formulation. A good example to this is the reason that compelled the U.S. to attack in Iraq in 2003. Just rationalism was definitely not used in the final decision making process, given the issues that erupted thereafter. This is detrimental to the president’s personal choices but acts or the best of the nation.
In foreign policy decision making, the President is the most powerful and central figure. Psychologically, the President is bound by some limitations as time and energy, ideology as well as rationality. With the presence of the foreign policy circle of advisers, the process of decision making is decentralized from the President making life and governance much easier. In this case, the bureaucracy in foreign policy safeguards the president from making decisions constrained by irrationality and psychological inabilities.
Bureaucracy in foreign policy is decentralized to four components