OK. I’m running a little behind again. I’ve got a meeting 100 miles away that’s supposed to start in an hour. Going the speed limit, I’ll be 40 minutes late. What choices do I have?

Well, I could drive down the highway at 100 miles an hour. The benefit of this course of action is that I might just make the meeting on time.

But there would be potential costs.

I would be using significantly more gasoline than if I were going the legal speed limit of 60 miles an hour.

The strain on my engine could lead to avoidable engine damage.

Going 40 miles an hour over the limit would probably draw the attention of local law enforcement (especially if I were navigating through the Westfield-Carmel speed trap!). In that case, I would be facing the probability of a heavy fine, several points on my license, possibly losing my license, and a substantial increase in insurance rates, if not outright cancellation.

Moreover, at that speed the car would be more likely to go out of control, causing a major wreck that could injure or kill me, other family members in the car, or strangers having the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My life would be ruined.

It’s a lousy choice, but it’s still a choice.

You would likely find yourself weighing the benefit of getting to the meeting on time against the potential costs of radically exceeding the speed limit.

It’s called a cost-benefit analysis.

National leaders are often faced with the necessity of doing the same thing for much higher stakes.

Based on the information he was given, George W. Bush concluded that the benefit of neutralizing the threat of  weapons of mass destruction reported to be in Iraq justified initiating the Second Gulf War, even at the cost of American lives and the further destabilization of the Middle East – a choice that still has ramifications today.

Based on the information he was given, Barack Obama made the decision that the benefit of eliminating Osama Bin Laden outweighed the risk of retaliation by a weakened and disorganized Al Qaeda.

The choices may be proven good or not so good by history, but both presidents did due diligence before pulling the trigger.

Or not pulling the trigger.

Both presidents also had Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in their crosshairs. Both concluded that the benefit of ridding the world of this man with so much American blood on his hands was outweighed by the potential cost of an inflamed Middle East, and potential retaliation against United States interests worldwide.

This is not to say that their decision was the correct one, or that subsequent presidents should be bound by that decision.

What is important is that there was a process that was followed to assure that any decision was a decision based on the best information available and something more substantial than personal pique or seat-of-the-pants gut feelings.

While there is unquestionably a benefit to the United States in no longer sharing the planet with Soleimani, there is no evidence that any substantial cost-benefit activity took place before the fact, and the multiple justifications offered after the fact are less than convincing.

There is a difference between decisive and discerning. Bottom line, a leader who acts upon impulse or emotion on a regular basis, without seriously pursuing an orderly process to consider the possible consequences of their actions, is a leader who is a danger to the country being led. Inevitably he, or she, will be betrayed by their intuition.

In a republic, where the population has the opportunity to participate in regularly scheduled elections, it can be argued that the benefit of changing leaders outweighs the cost of waiting for the inevitable to occur.