Until recent years, Dwight D. Eisenhower was not held in high regard as a President of the United States. Sandwiched between the colorful Harry S. Truman and the charismatic John F. Kennedy, “Ike” was often dismissed as an affable grandfather who spent more time playing golf than governing. In "Ike's Bluff", historian Evan Thomas pursues the revisionist view of the Eisenhower administration disclosing that a lot more was going on under the surface than the public realized.
Those who did
not live during the fifties cannot really grasp the fear and paranoia that were
part of that era. While the economy was
booming as WWII veterans established their families, found good jobs, and
bought homes in suburbia, the world lived under the threat of nuclear warfare
and possible annihilation. Americans
feared the Soviets and demagogues (such as Joseph McCarthy) fed this fear with
the idea that there were Communists in every government agency. At the same time, Thomas argues that the
Soviets were just as fearful of the United States and any Western military,
economic, or political advantage.
Thomas presents
a good case that the United States was never really in any great danger from
the Soviet Union. America always had more
nuclear bombs and strike capability than the Russians and, due to the U-2 spy
plane flights, Eisenhower knew this but could not disclose it the public. On the other hand, the Russians got an early
jump in heavy lift missile capability in the mid-50s, and this caused Ike to continually
seek nuclear disarmament negotiations to diminish a possible nuclear war.
The “bluff” that
Thomas uses in his title refers to the way that Eisenhower used the nuclear
capability of the United States to avoid war.
Policy makers went back and forth on whether the nuclear option was too
horrible to contemplate or a strategic advantage which should be used if
necessary. Ike’s bluff was that he never
indicated which option he embraced. Like
the poker player that he was, he did not show anyone, even his closest
advisors, the cards he was prepared to play.
Thomas argues that Eisenhower’s strategy kept the possible use of
nuclear weapons in play and the Russians at bay (and the Americans as the preeminent
world power).
Thomas gives us
a total picture of Eisenhower as a man and a leader. He had a terrible temper despite his affable
public face, he internalized much of his stress leading to a number of medical
crises, and he thought a great deal of his own leadership ability. Ike was a loyal friend, but he tolerated some
associates who got him and the nation in difficult situations.
The greatest
insight into the character of Eisenhower that Thomas provides was Ike’s fear of
a “garrison state” which devoted all of its resources to war or preparation for
war. As a military leader, he realized
that more is never enough for the generals and admirals!
Late in his
Presidency, Ike delivered a speech in which he warned of the growth of the “military-industrial
complex” devoted to building bigger and more expensive weapons. One friend noted that the President really
wanted to warn of the “congressional-military-industrial complex” but he feared
alienating members of his own party. The
greatest failure of the Eisenhower Presidency was an inability to rein in
excessive expenditures for military projects.
Although
Eisenhower had all the vices and virtues that come with a military career, he
was committed to providing a positive public example for the nation. From reading Thomas, I perceive a man who
believed first in his country, second in himself, and only then in God.
Like all
Presidents, Ike had his successes and his failures, but the public often
misunderstood which were which! Thomas
attempts to clarify the reality.
Comments