Editor’s Note: Julian Zelizer, a CNN political analyst, is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author and editor of 25 books, including the New York Times best-seller, “Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Lies and Legends About Our Past” (Basic Books). Follow him on Twitter @julianzelizer. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.

CNN
 — 

President Joe Biden has been criticized by members of both parties for not being more transparent and forthcoming about the decision to shoot down three aerial objects, just days after a US fighter jet took down a Chinese surveillance balloon off the coast of the Carolinas. But there may have been good reason for the lack of information made public in the days following the flurry of activity, and we should be patient as US authorities get to the bottom of what exactly these aerial objects are and where they originated from.

Administration officials used cryptic descriptions to describe the three objects, with one said to be an octagonal object with strings hanging off it, sparking more confusion and questions of extraterrestrial activity (which the White House press secretary ruled out on Monday).

On Thursday, the President offered his first extensive remarks on the aerial objects, saying the three smaller ones were “most likely balloons tied to private companies, recreation or research institutions studying weather or conducting other scientific research.” He also mapped out four measures to detect, monitor and establish rules and regulations around unmanned objects.

Biden’s comments seemed to address the critics who argued that the administration has not shared enough information or sufficiently explained the apparent policy shift toward aerial objects in US airspace.

Earlier this week, former President Donald Trump accused Biden of having “surrendered American airspace to Communist China.” Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Biden of causing “global shame” with his response. (Biden officials have said three balloons had flown over the US during the Trump administration, though it appears Trump officials weren’t aware of the overflights.) Even Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal emerged from a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday and said, “I have a better understanding, but the American people deserve and need to know more.”

The challenge Biden faces is not new. American presidents have often struggled to strike the right balance between transparency and secrecy when dealing with national security issues.

Sometimes presidents want to avoid fueling hysteria. Certainly, this was President Dwight Eisenhower’s response when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik-1 satellite on October 4, 1957. As public alarm mounted over the military implications of the launch, Eisenhower worked hard to contain fears. Speaking to the press days later, Eisenhower downplayed any concerns by saying there was “no additional threat to the United States … they have put one small ball in the air.”

Eisenhower underestimated the emotional impact Sputnik would have on the public, however, and Democrats weaponized the moment, comparing it to Pearl Harbor and claiming the Republican administration was not doing enough in the Cold War.

But Eisenhower’s response reflected his general disposition when it came to foreign policy and national security, as Evan Thomas documented in his book, “Ike’s Bluff.” He sought to do everything possible to avoid escalating the possibility of nuclear conflict.

Even as congressional Democrats ramped up their rhetoric about an alleged “missile gap” attributed to administration policies, Eisenhower held the line on military spending, focusing instead on investment in research and secret U-2 reconnaissance flights.

Presidents have also held back information for strategic reasons. This was certainly true in October 1962 when President John F. Kennedy initially withheld that his administration had images of Soviet missile sites being built in Cuba. This allowed the US ambassador to the UN to publicly confront the Soviet ambassador and dramatically reveal concrete evidence of what the Soviets had undertaken. The moment was important, giving the US the upper hand in persuading other countries that the Soviets were to blame for the dangerous standoff.

And then there are instances when presidents are trying to refrain from acting or making public statements in haste — to avoid unnecessary military provocations, figure out the best military path to take and be able to adjust their stance as a situation unfolds. While we valorize firm and decisive decision-making, sometimes being an effective president means being willing to learn and change as new facts and opportunities emerge.

This was certainly true with President Ronald Reagan, who after 1985 displayed considerable flexibility and caution as negotiations with the Soviet Union eventually culminated in 1987 with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Moving through many ups and downs over a two-year period, including the need to prevent the right wing of his own party from subverting progress, was not always easy. Indeed, Reagan had to withstand fierce criticism from conservatives who accused him of falling for a trap set by old Kremlin hard-liners and practicing the sort of appeasement he built his career opposing.

But in the end, he was successful. Restraint and flexibility produced a breakthrough agreement that accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union.

None of this is to say there aren’t also terrible reasons for secrecy in national security. Transparency is an important element of our democracy for a reason; there is a long history of American presidents withholding damaging information or conducting wrong — or even illegal — military operations, as President Richard Nixon did when he authorized secret bombings of Cambodia in 1969. In 1976, Democratic Sen. Frank Church campaigned to expose the way American presidents had relied on illegal domestic surveillance, attempted assassinations and helped overthrow foreign governments in their efforts to advance the US’ national interest.

At this point there is sufficient reason to believe Biden has not been recreating the worst kinds of presidential behavior we’ve seen in the past. By all indications, it seems Biden exercised caution in shooting down the Chinese surveillance balloon and aimed to do so in a safe manner.

It’s likely Biden wanted to show China this kind of surveillance would not be tolerated while avoiding triggering a more dangerous confrontation between two superpowers. The risks are clear as US-China relations are deteriorating and Beijing has since accused the US of flying balloons over its airspace numerous times. (The White House denied Beijing’s accusation and described the claim as an attempt at damage control.) As Max Boot argued in The Washington Post, “A healthy concern about China’s growing power is warranted, but paranoia and alarmism are not.”

On Thursday, Biden said he would make no apologies for shooting down the surveillance balloon, but stressed, “We seek competition, not conflict with China. We’re not looking for a new Cold War.”

Regarding the other downed objects, the administration was concerned about the risk to commercial flights, given that they were flying at a lower altitude than the surveillance balloon. So far, the leading theory among US intelligence officials is that they were flown for benign purposes.

Of course, we will learn more in the coming weeks as government officials collect and sift through the remains. Biden should continue to be as upfront with the American public as he can, disclosing what is safe to share while providing reassurance.

Before Americans jump to the conclusion that this was all an example of botched foreign policy — or worse — it’s worth remembering how many presidents have, for all the right reasons, wrestled with the difficult trade-offs of transparency when dealing with matters of national security. Although it doesn’t always make for great movie plots, the complications of real-world presidential leadership can often produce messy but well-reasoned results.

This article has been updated with news of Biden’s statement on Thursday.