Who needs anyone else? Ask Ike.
Bloggers were on the attack after President Barack Obama’s recent diplomatic tour of Europe, charging him with wrongly apologizing for American arrogance. One typically cited the cemeteries throughout the continent where tens of thousands of soldiers who never made it back from the world wars still rest. “The Europeans need to pray our arrogant attitude continues,” the message concluded-thus itself continuing the arrogance.
As we head into the 65th anniversary of D-Day, those critics should be reminded of how American military leaders handled diplomacy in 1944. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, as commander in chief of Allied forces in Western Europe, had to work with larger-than-life superiors like President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as well as subordinates like generals Bernard Montgomery, Charles de Gaulle and George S. Patton Jr. Although some present-day fantasists claim the United States would have won the war sooner with Patton in overall command of the Western Allies, Patton would have been the first to disagree. Preferring combat to diplomacy, he suggested as early as 1919 that his friend Ike could take charge of overall army affairs in a future war, while he would gladly do what he did best-tactical execution in the field.
Eisenhower had the right combination of humility and ruthlessness to juggle all those egos and channel them into a coalition that won the war. As for residual good will, even after de Gaulle broke with the United States and NATO, his amity toward Ike remained lifelong.
Might that sort of good will count for anything in the United States’ future dealings in a hostile world? If Obama wants to re-forge coalitions, he might find Eisenhower a role model worth emulating.
About the Author: Born in Flushing, New York on January 3, 1951 and brought up in the little Hudson River town of Palisades, N.Y., Jon Guttman got his Master’s Degree in European History from the State University of New York at Albany in 1975. Since July 1988, he has lived and worked in Leesburg, as senior editor, research director and contributing writer for the magazines currently published by Weider Publications. He was editor of Modern Warfare magazine from 1989 to 1990 and of Military History magazine from 1995 to 2006. He is currently research editor for the Weider History Group and publications such as Military History, World War II, Aviation History, America’s Civil War, Civil War Times Illustrated, Vietnam and Wild West.
Best-known internationally for his research and writing in the field of World War I aviation—an interest that evolved from his childhood, both from building models and reading his father’s old aviation magazines from the 1930s—Mr. Guttman has also written numerous articles on naval history and World War II aviation. His first book on the former subject, Defiance at Sea, was published in Britain in 1995 and has been reprinted twice since. A book on aviation, Fighting Firsts, was published in London in March 2000. He is the editor and contributing author of the book Great Commanders in Action, and a contributing editor and co-author in Desert Storm. In addition to his many World War I-related magazine articles, he has written softback monographs on the Nieuport 28, Caudron G.3, Caudron G.4, American D.H.4, Salmson 2A2, Nieuport Pilots of the Lafayette and the experimental James V. Martin K.III Kitten fighter of World War I and co-authored Salmson Aircraft of World War I and Spad Two-Seat Fighters of World War I. He has also published four books for Osprey’s Aircraft of the Aces series, Spad VII Aces of World War 1, Spad XII and XIII Aces of World War1, Balloon Busting Aces of World War 1, Bristol F2 Fighter Aces of World War 1 and Pusher Aces of World War 1, as well as three more for that publisher’s elite units series—N.124 Lafayette Escadrille, Groupe de Combat 12 Les Cigognes and USAS 1st Pursuit Group; and Duel series books Sopwith Camel vs Fokker Dr I , SPAD XIII vs Fokker D VII. and SE 5 vs Albatros D V.
A resident of Leesburg since 1988, Jon served more than 20 years in the Army National Guard, retiring as a master sergeant in the 29th Infantry Division (Light) effective January 15, 2005. In June 1994, he went to Normandy as a member of the 29th’s Color Guard, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the division’s participation in the D-Day invasion of France. He was also called to active service in and around Washington, D.C., during the January 1996 blizzard, and on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia and Herzegovina between September 2001 and April 2002.
Find similar posts tagged with: anniversaries, current events
Brian King said:
I’m not sure the current POTUS has read anything on famous generals in history, but Ike’s greatest contribution and challenges during World War II seemed to come from his coalition partners. I’m reading Mark Perry’s Partners in Command (about Ike and his commander George Marshall). It came as quite a surprise how much time and effort they spent debating with the British. The lesson is that if there were such disputes in the middle of a World War, it will be nearly impossible for any president of the United States to build and maintain a successful coalition in less stressful times… Still, Ike is as good a role model as they come if anyone cares to learn more about him.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Bobby Abernethy said:
You are a sad puppy, this is pure bullshit from a Obama justifyer.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Mike Halvorsen said:
No, I’m no “apologist” for President Obama or anyone else, but I’m in 100% agrement with the author of this piece. In fact, I would suggest that POTUS also consult with another builder of of alliances: George Herbert Walker Bush (AKA “Bush the Elder”). As a history buff and a former Army “Grunt”, I can safely claim to another name: Pacifist. ANY war, no matter how justifiable, is going to be a bad war…especially for those young men and women who have to do the fighting. It always disgusts me when when some Chickenhawk in the higher reaches of our political system screams for “WAR!”, having never personally had the experience of seeing or hearing a shot fired in anger.
JFK said, in his inauguration speech, that we should “never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate”. That having been said, when words fail, then Force, sadly, must prevail. The trick in this is getting others to see things from our point of view, without enraging 3,000,000,000 people as our former “leadership” (I use that term loosely) succeeded in doing. Perhaps giving the President a fair shot at succeeding might be the right thing to do…regardless of what that fat, bald, pillhead with a boil on his butt (his draft deferrment!), would have us do.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Paul Davis said:
I would submit that Eisenhower’s amity did not extend to Hitler or our other sworn enemies at the time.
In my view, Obama is speaking for himself and his followers when he speaks of American “arrogance.”
I and many other Americans reject this view. It was American “arrogance” that enabled us to free more than half of the world from tyranny – including many Muslim nations.
We have nothing to be sorry for. The world is a much better, safer and freer place due to the United States of America.
Paul Davis
Philadelphia, PA
June 6th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Jon Guttman said:
Thus far, I think Mike Halvorsen has interpreted my intent very well. Having been in service at the time of Desert Shield/Desert Storm and did a peacekeeping stint in Bosnia alongside troops from 33 different countries, I couldn’t agree more that George H.W. Bush got it commendably right in 1991. Even if he forgot about Eisenhower, Dubya might have profited from consulting with Dad before losing us so many of our friends. It wouldn’t hurt Barack to get a few pointers from him, either.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Paul Davis said:
I agree that President Bush (The Elder) did everything write in 1991 – except he didn’t finish the job.
It took his son, President Bush (The Younger), to finish Saddam off.
Although there were critial errors made in the aftermath of the Iraq War, we are on track now. I believe history will be kind to Bush The Younger.
Obama and his supporters truly believe that his wonderfully read speech off a TelePrompter will win over Islamic fanatics and make them love us. That is true arrogance, it seems to me.
As for friends lost by Bush The Younger, have you seen the results of the European elections? It appears that the European leadership is closer to Bush than Obama…
June 8th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Frank Wilson said:
Before dismissing Bush the Younger for not building a coalition it would be helpful to explain the difference between the coalition the father built and the one the son built. Britain and Australia were actively involved in the second invasion of Iraq and I don’t recall that, during the first Iraq war, there was any greater contribution to the fighting on any other country’s part. Both invasions were sanctioned by UN Security Council mandates. The presumption that Bush the Younger did not consult with his father is just that – a presumption. As for the business of learning from Eisenhower, we are talking about different personalities and different circumstances – in short, one more facile historical analogy.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
Good article, Jon, and it’s provoked some interesting commens, hasn’t it? While it’s true (as Paul points out) that Eisenhower’s amity did not extend to any sworn enemy of the United States, I think it’s equally obvious that President Obama’s amity does not either, and to imply otherwise is, in my opinion, a gross diservice to both our President and to the truth. By the same token, Obama’s appology for the sometimes arrogant way we have dealt with our friends in Europe not withstanding, he would clearly agree with — and has affirmed on numerous occasions — the proposition that America has been a force for enormous good throughout history, up to and including our own time. I do not understand the need to interpret every suggestion that something we have done in the past is less than perfect as meaning that nothing we have ever done is any good at all. I also do not understand how folks can roundly denounce the policies of the current president (which is entirely within their right) but in the next breath suggest that anyone who disagrees with the policies of the last president somehow must hate America. Everyone gets to disagree with the president — every president. Right?
June 19th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Frank Chadwick said:
Not meaning to monopolize the discussion here, but I think Frank Wilson raises a serious question and one which deserves a straight answer. Did any country make a greater contribution to the fighting in Gulf War I than Britain and Australia did in Gulf War II? In a word — absolutely. Britain committed one combat division (1st Armoured) to Desert Storm, and it did a magnificent job as part of US VII Corps. But the French also committed an armored division, the Syrians committed an armored division and a commando brigade, the Egyptians committed an entire corps of two armored divisions and a ranger regiment, and the Saudis and Kuwaitis each committed five or six brigades, all of which equalled or exceeded the ground forces committed by the UK in either war, and greatly exceeded the Australian committment — valuable and welcome as that commitment was. Desert Storm/Gulf War I was a genuine multi-national coalition, historically without precedent, including the ground combat forces of seven Arab and/or North African Moslem states: Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:38 pm