Kyle Kapanek

The rational actor model is a View of foreign policy decision-making

that assumes policy-makers have a shared sense of the national interest,
which they seek to attain via a rational process of finding the most efficient
means to achieve those ends. (Bova 82) This model shares the view that
much deliberation and contemplation of many different groups and people is
necessary before making a decision, and the final decision is one that holds
the best option for national interest at the lowest cost.
One of the major points of the rational actor model is that policy
makers begin with a shared sense of national interest. In reference to the
movie, this shared sense of national interest was evident in the fact that they
all wanted to keep their country safe, while preventing another war, or an
exchange of nuclear weapons. This national interest was at the foreground
for all discussions and was frequently referenced. Policy makers attempted to
think of different scenarios in which they could protect their country while
not appearing too aggressive to the Soviets. Another major point of the
rational actor model is the policy making is a rational, intelligent process.
This was also evident throughout the movie, as much of the movie was
focused on the deliberations of the president and all other actors involved in
the process. Each person played a different role in giving different scenarios
and different areas of expertise, maximizing the information given to all
involved to make a level headed and analytical decision. Thirdly, as part of
the rational model, once a policy is made, it will be implemented more or
less, as policy makers had intended. This was also heavily focused on in the

Kyle Kapanek
movie as the Navy, and administration had to work together to ensure the
plan was carried out properly. Things almost went south in the example from
the movie when a Navy man ordered a firing of warning shots, which
Secretary Mcnamara heavily disagreed with, based on the fact that the
president ordered that shots be fired only under his direct approval. Policy
makers and those enforcing the policy have to work together to ensure
everything goes as planned. This part of the rational actor model is essential
in carrying out an effective decision.
The bureaucratic politics model sees foreign policy-making as a
struggle among government institutions, agencies, and actors to promote
their version of the national interest as shaped by the interests and
perspectives of their particular bureaucratic agency. (Bova 88) much conflict
arises in international relations and compromises must be made to come to
an agreement that is in the interest of each of the actors best national
interest.
This model holds the view that policy making is a social process and
that there is no single version of national interest. This is evident in the film
but some policy makers wanting to react with military force, and others
wanting to react with more peaceful terms. Both had national interest in
mind, but views as to which way would be better and how each would
promote national interest differed. This model also holds the view that policy
decisions are compromises and that politics does not stop once a decision is
made. In reference to the movie, compromise played a huge role in solving

Kyle Kapanek
the Cuban missile crisis. America did not originally want to pull out of Turkey
as they feared it might make them look weak and might lessen their military
stronghold on the area. When looking more into it, they decided that pulling
out after 6 months could work and compromising on this aspect was what
essentially was the last part of the process in getting this deal finalized.
Policy makers must also deal with hardships in the implementation of policy.
For example, military actors were not totally on the same page with the
president in this decision and caused conflict that could have messed up the
implementation entirely.
The events that unfolded throughout the film were both guided by
each countries sense of national interest. On one hand, The U.S. was mainly
focused on hardening their sense of security and saw the missiles in Cuba as
a potential threat to their security, especially after the poor relations with
Cuba after the bay of pigs incident. The U.S.S.R. saw this as a potential
opportunity to empower themselves in the area of their military offensive.
They gained a sort of alliance with Cuba, and also instilled a sense of fear in
the U.S. public. This was all resolved through much deliberation on each end
of the spectrum and was especially solved through compromise. After the
U.S. blockade, which was luckily non-violent, the U.S.S.R. denied any
offensive military building in Cuba. After the U.S. showed evidence of this,
the two countries worked on a sort of treaty that both sides could get on
board with. Originally the U.S. did not want to pull out of Turkey, but after

Kyle Kapanek
deliberation and compromise in respect to a 6-month period to pull out of
Turkey, a solution was produced for both parties and peace was restored.
Realism explains the confrontation very well, as much of the
deliberation was based on the fact of inevitable military retaliation from the
soviets if the U.S. used military force in Cuba. This sense of realism was the
major reason for Kennedy not wanting to use any military force as he knew,
human nature included the inevitable characteristic of aggression and the
want for retaliation. Liberalism does not seem to apply throughout this movie
as much of the decision making is based on the fact that realistically, the
struggle for power and the inevitable war that might ensue was at the
forefront. Constructivism does not seem to apply either, as constructivism
suggests that anarchy is not necessarily inevitable as realism suggests. If
this view was held, then military force would have been sued without
question, if they did not think anarchy, or war would ensue based on Soviet
retaliation.