Eisenhower in War and Peace

In this extraordinary volume, Jean Edward Smith presents a portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower that is as full, rich, and revealing as anything ever written about America’s thirty-fourth president. Here is Eisenhower the young dreamer, charting a course from Abilene, Kansas, to West Point and beyond. Drawing on a wealth of untapped primary sources, Smith provides new insight into Ike’s maddening apprenticeship under Douglas MacArthur. Then the whole panorama of World War II unfolds, with Eisenhower’s superlative generalship forging the Allied path to victory. Smith also gives us an intriguing examination of Ike’s finances, details his wartime affair with Kay Summersby, and reveals the inside story of the 1952 Republican convention that catapulted him to the White House.

Smith’s chronicle of Eisenhower’s presidential years is as compelling as it is comprehensive. Derided by his detractors as a somnambulant caretaker, Eisenhower emerges in Smith’s perceptive retelling as both a canny politician and a skillful, decisive leader. He managed not only to keep the peace, but also to enhance America’s prestige in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Unmatched in insight, Eisenhower in War and Peace at last gives us an Eisenhower for our time—and for the ages.

Quotes and thoughts while reading:

"Use common sense; don't magnify the importance of insignificant details; don't worry about bygones; and keep it simple. "Remember that Napoloeon's battle plans are among the simplest that history records." Focus, common sense, simplicity, and attitude - the recipe for Ike's success." (p 73) It's telling that these are the idioms for success from a man born near the end of the 19th century, and who lived through the greatest era. We've lost some of what helped Ike, and I think nowadays we get too hung up on details, and it always seems like we try to make it more and more complex.

In the future I'd like to look into A Guide to the American Battle Fields in Europe, Ike's complete history of the American war on the Western Front of WWI.

"For the remainder of his tour in Washington, Eisenhower rooted for Roosevelt to pull the country out of the Depression. Ike shared the Regular Army officers' animosity to "socialism" (a remarkable paradox for men who usually lived in government housing, drew subsistence rations from the quartermaster, shopped at the subsidized commissary, and enjoyed free medical and dental care), but he welcomed a strong hand at the tiller. "For two years I've been called 'Dictator Ike' because I believe that virtual dictatorship must be exercised by our President," Ike wrote on the eve of FDR's inauguration. "Things are not going to take an upturn until more power is centered in one man's hands. Only in that way will confidence be inspired; will it be possible to do some of the obvious things for speeding recovery, and we will be freed from the pernicious influence of noisy and selfish minorities." (p 116-117) Whew, while this is a bit scary to think about, it is right. A dictatorship has the power to swiftly make decisions, sometimes for the betterment of the nation. I think it is also interesting to know this, and to take it into consideration when we think of how Ike laid out the Supreme Commander position for WWII. It is this exact thinking, that you need one man, who will bear the brunt of the bad decisions, and who will make the decision, which is needed to lead the large scale effort that was WWII and all the allied powers.

The chapter "With Marshall in Washington" is where we see how Ike went from being a general serviceman in the Army, to being someone who would eventually lead the allied forces in WWII, and then go on to be the President of the United States. It is where we first really see his acumen take shape, the manner in which he swiftly assumed responsibility, and his ability to act without the direct input of his supervisors. We also see how Ike could act in situations, and propose ideas never constructed before. "Marshall turned to Ike: "Eisenhower, draft a letter of instruction for a supreme commander in the Southwest Pacific." Although it was the evening of Christmas Day, Ike returned to his desk at the War Department and hammered out a five-page draft. He finished shortly before midnight. The document specified the mission, defined the authority of the supreme commander, and provided safeguards for each nation in matters affecting national sovereignty. Eisenhower was writing a blank slate. There were no precedents." (p 185) Marshall made two or three edits, and the draft that Eisenhower hammered out became the directive the allied powers followed. Later, Marshall told "Eisenhower to draft a directive specifying the duties and responsibilities of a commanding general for a European theater of operations(ETO)... The document, which Ike later referred to as "The Bible", gave the theater commander absolute control of all American forces in the ETO, regardless of branch or service... When Eisenhower handed the draft directive to Marshall, he asked the chief to study it carefully because it could be an important document for the further waging of the war... "Does the directive suit you?" Marshall asked. "Are you satisfied with it?"... "because these are the orders you are going to operate under"... "You. You are in command of the European theater."... Eisenhower was briefly flustered. He had no combat experience, and his only command position in the past twenty years had been an infantry battalion at Fort Lewis." (p 198-199) It is later explained more in depth, that while Eisenhower didn't have direct command experience and knowledge(for which he did suffer some battle losses), he was a great leader and manager. And when he finally was able to relinquish direct command of forces, and command the commanders, the allied forces trounced the axis powers.

With the weather turned foul, the decision to launch D-Day fell to Ike and his advisors: "After everyone had spoken, Eisenhower sat quietly. Smith remembered the silence lasted for five full minutes. "I never realized before the loneliness and isolation of a commander at a time when such a momentous decision has to be taken, with the full knowledge that failure of success rests on his judgment alone."... When Ike looked up he was somber, but not troubled. "OK, we'll go." With those words, Eisenhower launched the D-Day invasion of Europe, an enterprise without precedent in the history of warfare." (p 352)

The Americans, honestly, had a terrible sense of how to fight a war. I'm no great military commander/thinker, but from my viewpoint of common sense, it makes most sense to drive a spike through an opposing side, then rush through the line, and setup command posts behind them to flank them and attack on both sides. The American military command at the time thought it was best to fight along a continuous line, and to slowly, equally, push the enemy back. "Monty(Montgomery, commander of the British forces) sought to breach the enemy line and exploit the breakthrough. "It is clear that Ike is quite unsuited for the post of Supreme Commander as far as running the strategy of the war is concerned," Field Marshal Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial general staff, wrote in despair." (p 366)

The fighting in Normandy had raged for seventy-five days. The German Army Group B, commanded by Rommel, then by von Kluge, had committed two veteran armies, the Seventh and Fifth Panzer, some forty divisions (600,000 men) and 1,500 tanks to the battle. The Allies deployed four armies, also totaling about forty divisions, 600,000 men, and 3,000 tanks. The vital difference was in the air. The Allies brought more than 12,000 aircraft to the battle; the Germans had almost none. When the fighting ended, the Germans had lost almost 500,000 men, killed wounded, or captured, and virtually all of their equipment. Allied losses totaled almost 200,000, two-thirds of whom were American. The Allied losses were quickly replenished; the German looses were irreplaceable." (p 382) See, here's the thing with the American plan vs. the British one. The Americans were fighting a war based on attrition, by admittance. The last time the British fought a war based on attrition was WWI, and were fearful of trench warfare breaking out again, and losing so many men. The British had been in the war much much longer than the Americans, and didn't have as many men or supplies to throw at it as the Americans. Spurred from this thought is the idea, that if the Americans had ended the war sooner, maybe we wouldn't have climbed out of the Great Depression as quickly. One of the reasons we were able to rebound as an economy was because of the massive military machine, either employing soldiers at war, or factory workers at home, who would supply thousands of tanks, jeeps and weapons. Still, it is atrocious how many lives were lost, and it has been said that if Ike had operated under the theory of driving a spike into Germany, and running his forces through that gap, the war could have ended sooner. But realistically, as the attack on D-Day commenced, the war was over. America was in the war now, and would win it via attrition, it was just a matter of how much time it took.

"Eisenhower's decision to liberate Paris marked the end of his apprenticeship and his entrance onto the world stage. On his own authority, without seeking the approval of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, the British war cabinet, or Washington, he had installed a new government in France, saved Paris from destruction, and received the adulation of the French people. By providing de Gaulle the opportunity to occupy the Palais de l'Elysee, he outmaneuvered FDR and the State Department so skillfully that he left no fingerprints. (p 393)

"Eisenhower is to blame for the broad-front strategy that stretched Allied lines so thin that German armor had little difficulty breaking through. With a candor that is rare among military commanders, Ike later accepted full responsibility. "If giving him[Hitler] that chance is to be condemned by historians, their condemnations should be directed at me alone." Eisenhower can also be faulted for permitting the enemy to make a measured retreat from the Bulge without attempting to cut them off... By the same token, Eisenhower is entitled to full credit for the victory. From the start of the German offensive, he showed a quicker grasp of the situation than any of his subordinates, and he acted decisively to contain the attack... Eisenhower had the nerve to allow the German advance to continue until it ran out of steam, and then deliver massive counterattacks from the south under Patton, and from the north under Montgomery." (p 415) And here we see, as I mentioned before, when Eisenhower let his commanders do the commanding, and he simply guided them and reinforced them with supplies, he excelled. I also have to mention the gumption of Patton, to move so swiftly as to mount a counterattack within days. It's mentioned somewhere a bit earlier, how it was asked of Patton how swiftly he could act and he replied with something ridiculous like "Within a day" - they gave him three days to get fully prepped and supplied, but this goes to show what a brilliant commander Patton was. When Eisenhower did as Marshall did to him, and let his subordinates work on a long leash, impressive feats were accomplished. He still always made the final decision, and owned when they were wrong as often as when they were right.

In addition to Eisenhower's book on WWI, I'd also like to read Crusade in Europe, his memoirs from World War II. It is stated that Crusade in Europe "remains one of the clearest and least opinionated books to come out of World War II." (p 469)

"In Hoover's view, the continental United States should become the "Gibraltar of Freedom." Eisenhower was appalled. It was, he wrote Clay, "the false doctrine of isolationism." In the nineteenth century Gibraltar was a truly great stronghold, said Ike. "Today, Gibraltar is one of the weakest military spots in the world. It could be reduced to nothing by a few modern guns posted in the hills and concentrating their fire on it." (p 511) Under Eisenhower, America truly became the police of the world. He authorized the CIA to do flyovers of Russia, and wanted to decrease the Army and Navy but beef up the Air-force. In this way, America could feasibly respond to a crisis before it was a full scale war.

And yet, almost counter to what I just wrote, Eisenhower was deeply concerned about the Military Industrial Complex, and the costs associated with it. "The jet plane that roars over your head costs three-quarter of a million dollars. That is more money than a man making ten thousand dollars every year is going to make in his lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long? We are in an armaments race. Where will it lead us? At worst, to atomic warfare. At best, to robbing every people and nation on earth of the fruits of their own soil." (p 573) Fuck yeah Eisenhower. He goes on to say that he wanted to see the resources of the world to be used for bread, clothes, homes, hospitals, and schools, but not for guns. That sounds like a great idea. Can you imagine, diverting the cost of just a few massively expensive airplanes to support schools, think of how the education system could change with that kind of income? Not to say how other social systems might change.

The scheme outlined in pages 600 to 601 reminded me of a scene from House of Cards. Frantically searching for the one Senator to be the deciding vote to cast down an amendment, only to find him taking a nap to sleep of hitting the bottle mid-afternoon is incredibly dramatic. In addition to all of this, I do have to love how Jean Smith wrote that "The true victors in the amendment fight were Davis, who organized the opposition and knew which buttons to press, and Lyndon Johnson, whose Machiavellian dexterity ultimately saved the day." (p 601) Kind of scary to think that LBJ, a future President had "Machiavellian" ways, but in all honesty, most politicians probably hope for those ways.

"Eisenhower is personally responsible for the interstate highway system - the largest public works project ever attempted. In the aftermath of the Korean War, defense spending slowed and the nation's economy headed south. The danger signs were evident as early as February 1954. At a cabinet meeting on February 5, Eisenhower stressed the need to develop a public works program so that if needed it could be put into effect immediately. "If we don't move rapidly, we could be in serious trouble," said the President." (p 651) Eisenhower had, in 1919 after WWI traveled across the country in a display of military bravado from Washington DC to San Francisco, so he had first hand knowledge how arduous it was to drive across the country. In 1955, the Clay committee "recommended an expenditure of $101 billion (roughly $895 billion currently(2015)) over ten years, and forty-one thousand miles of divided highways linking all U.S. cities with a population of more than fifty thousand." (p 652) The plan was funded via a 4 cent gasoline tax (still in use today but closer to 20 cents), and the most shocking part to me was that Eisenhower was listed as a Republican. Can you imagine a Republican trying to push something like this through Congress today? "Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative. He believed in a balanced budget, worked hard to attain it, and eventually succeeded. But he was not a movement ideologue and had no interest in dismantling the national government. Federal action, he once said, was sometimes required to "floor over the pit of personal disaster in our complex modern society." (p 654)

As a reminder that even though the Supreme Court is given incredible power, and that we hope they are above the limitations of their own bias and time period, I was reminded that Plessy v Ferguson was upheld with a vote of 7-1. It upheld the theory of "separate but equal". The Supreme Court stated "If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them on the same plane." (p 707) Woof. And so I am reminded, that issues that come before the Supreme Court will always be met with bias and pressure. And that we must hope future iterations will take the time to ponder and hopefully repair some of the mistakes that have been made in the past.

I find it illuminating how quickly this book wraps up after Ike leaves the Presidency. So much of his life happened before then, and his Presidential years were the most peaceful on record. It seemed as if at times before the Presidency Ike didn't really want the position, but felt it was his duty to the nation to lead. And in my opinion that is exactly the President we need. I want whoever our President is, to honor the position, but not covet it. And that was Ike. He did what was best for the country, stayed out of wars, balanced the budget, and cared for it's citizens. He wanted each and every American to become a better American.

I'd like to close and point out something about Eisenhower. He knew when to ask for help. When he found himself in a position that wasn't favorable, he reached out to select contacts he knew, and asked to be moved. And that's how he wound up to be so successful. Seriously. That's how. If he hadn't asked to be moved maybe 8 or 9 times, there's no way he would have wound up with MacArthur, arguably the biggest contributor to his success. Under MacArthur he was given a lot of leeway, and lived up to that leeway. He was an incredibly hard worker, 99% of the time receiving review ratings of "Superior", and after he had built up a long enough record of these, doors opened to him. But it really took him recognizing he wasn't in a favorable position, and reaching out for help. He never really did this when he was a military commander, as it would have showed a sense of weakness the Supreme Commander couldn't afford to display, but he did take military advice, and when old friends urged him to delegate the direct military skirmishes to his battle commanders, Ike was able to step back and do what he did best, manage. The military built an amazing manager in Ike, and both the military and the Office of the President benefited.

Also, if you ever get the chance, listen to Ike's farewell address to the Nation as he was leaving the Office of the President. It's been written about many times, including in The Road to Character by David Brooks. I've also put a copy of the text on my own website. Link to Eisenhower's Farewell Speech

And with that, I think this is it. I just spent a little over two weeks with Eisenhower, and I'm almost sad I won't be thinking about him nearly everyday. I think he has a lot to teach us. He was from a different time in America, much much different than today. But the axioms that I started with which lead to his success I think still apply. Focus, common sense, simplicity, and attitude - the recipe for Ike's success.