The title of Supreme Commander is rather intimidating, but
it is one that was used to define an American from the small town of Abilene,
Kansas, who became the most influential military figure of World War Two. Dwight Eisenhower did not seek out the title,
but he defined it by his leadership, intelligence, wisdom, and diplomatic
skills.
In The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower,
historian Stephen E. Ambrose gives a clear and concise account of the war years
of General Eisenhower, from the time that he was sent to Europe by Chief of
Staff George Marshall until the victory over Nazi Germany.
Ambrose’s account gave me a new appreciation for Eisenhower’s
leadership in four areas.
First, I always knew that Eisenhower was a gifted
logistician, but Ambrose helps the reader to see how essential to victory was
the provision of not only men and equipment, but maintenance and supply
lines. An army can only perform effectively
if it has the tools necessary to do its mission. Eisenhower gave priority to such planning,
knowing that a great deal of flexibility was also needed as circumstances
changed. He encouraged his staff to be
creative and resourceful as they planned for the unthinkable.
Second, I gained a greater understanding of how he used his
personality and “people skills” to deal with outsized personalities like President
Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, British commander Field
Marshall Bernard Montgomery, American General George Patton, and even his
mentor Marshall. Eisenhower would not be
bullied but stood his ground when he knew that he understood the situation
better than anyone else. He was willing
to be the “expert in the room” and deal with the forceful personalities that often
opposed him.
One way that he did this was to develop a unified team that
crossed international lines. The British
officers on his staff were treated equally to American officers and became big “Ike”
fans. He treated them fairly and
welcomed their contributions. Although
he tried to avoid making political decisions, his reputation with his British
staff helped him to deal with Churchill and other British leaders when his decisions
were challenged on political grounds.
Third, although some have said that Eisenhower was not a strategic thinker but only a planner, his decisions during the final assault on Germany showed his understanding of the overall situation and the ability to pursue a master plan. Throughout his time in command, he exhibited his willingness to defer to his commanders and let them exercise their own initiative. At times, he may have been too “hands off” (especially when it came to Montgomery) but his strategy ultimately achieved victory.
Fourth, Eisenhower understood that with command comes
responsibility. In both North Africa and
Europe, he was ready to accept full responsibility if the invasions
failed. He had made the call and he
would accept the consequences. This is
true leadership.
One comes away from Ambrose’s book with an understanding
that modern warfare operates on several levels—offensive operations, logistics,
and politics. At the center, however,
are men and women who must know how to work with others to accomplish a
mission. Dwight Eisenhower was such a
leader.
Comments