Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator - Essay Example

COMMAND, LEADERSHIP AND ETHICS Command, Leadership and Ethics Customer Inserts His/Her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 10, 02, 2013 Introduction At this moment in time, a number of military historians endeavored in scrutinizing the notion that the nation’s militias are deemed to be influential, particularly in training manifold American individuals for senior headship positions in the federal-government. The militias’ role was deemed to be elemental in grooming a number of leaders encompassing: Truman, Roosevelt and Jackson Andrew. Currently, this notion has been exemplified better by Eisenhower Dwight D, the US 34th president and Militia General. Eisenhower had a leadership that was deemed to be dynamic in a complicated multinational environment. In the year 1941, Eisenhower was regarded as a remarkable Militia. This is in view of the notion that his military vocation was undistinguished and had provided him with a number of opportunities to lay bare his operational performance.1 For instance, in a span of three years, he was maneuvering under extreme anxiety of worldwide war that led him in becoming Europe’s Supreme-Commander of the Militia. His operational performance was marvelous as it won the 20th Century’s great terra firma campaigns and it was correlated with his developmental stages that came about in the minimal peace-time militia of 1920s to 1930s. This paper will scrutinize the operational performance of Eisenhower Dwight, a militia commander of the 20th century. The scrutiny will be on the basis of leadership efficacy, which will put its focus on Eisenhower’s capabilities, traits, and individual values, and a model of leadership that will be supported by past literatures2. Eisenhower Dwight Idyllically, Dwight was capable of making elemental decisions. He was deemed to be a crafts-man master, particularly in stipulating the leadership art. Both as a statesman and a combatant, Eisenhower bored the day after day accountability of coming up with critical pronouncements that were capable of having across-the-board impacts for the entire nation. In the year 1940, as a murky militia, his multinational recognition came after four years while he was functioning as the Superlative Allied Commander that guided the armies in a number of European Crusades. As a matter of fact, Dwight was not only a soldier but also a statesman who was useful in putting together the Militias’ ambassadorial and opinionated facets. The leadership of Dwight was characterized by his individual values and mind-set inculcation. While carrying out his duties as a militia, Eisenhower came across multinational issues that were deemed to be contentious and which were capable dividing individual and thus, causing contradictory demands of individuals as well as nations. This made him to recognize those individuals that were elemental in shaping the postwar globe, and whom he continued being in contact with. Eisenhower studied his militia profession in a diligent manner as he got ready for senior jobs that he couldn’t imagine of ever holding. His decision-maker schooling came about during those years that were categorized by peace. Dwight was a persuasive and dependable individual. The upbringing of bedrock was correlated with bedrock values. For instance, he discovered the West Pont code-of-duty, Nation, and Nobility. “The Oath of allegiance that he took when he became a cadet signified his acceptance of the civic responsibilities inherent in both codes and remained a cherished moment for the rest his life”.3 While at West-Point, Dwight adopted a number of traits that become elemental years later. In actual fact, in order to persuade other individuals to co-operate with him, he always speak well of others. To that effect, he also instigated trust due to his good nature that was deemed to be awe-inspiring as well as his brawny individuality. Also, he had a leadership capability and this was on the basis of his prospective, his impetus and a number of his developmental processes. For instance, his Classmates deemed him to be a natural head that endeavored at guaranteeing that disputes are smoothened and the exertions of a particular group are organized with the aim of attaining a common objective. From the West-Point, he left to carry out his first assignment as the second infantry-lieutenant. Superlatively, it was apparent that Dwight was very suited to the task and was also regarded as the militia’s cooperative endeavor. The militia assignments that Eisenhower took during the period of postwar were similar to those that other officers took. The time that Dwight spent with other troops was deemed to be very minimal as he never acted a command of the battalion until the year 1940. Nonetheless, Dwight spent a number of years in carrying out sundry organizational duties that encompassed: staff-work, recruitment, and intermittent details. During the year 1927, Eisenhower was appointed to hold the position of the American-Battle Monuments-Commission. Aside from coming-up with an American battle-fields guide, he also had the opportunity to go to the General-Staff and Command School and following his graduation, he joined the Army-Industrial College and the Army-War College. Thus, his leadership began to be developed from the initial training and conscript at the ADF. Superlatively, the peace-time service by Eisenhower was deemed to be unique. To begin with, “His World War I service training troops for the tank corps and a subsequent tank corps assignment at Fort Meade in 1920 gave him an early familiarity with armor that few other officers could match”.4 As a matter of fact, Dwight had been assigned a contingent that was being commanded by Patton George but their continuing relationship was being forged by Eisenhower. Both Dwight and Patton commenced a study program that was deemed to be intensive with the endeavor of getting them fully prepared when they will be allowed to study at the General-Staff and Command-School. His leadership capabilities were on the basis of the Competency-Based-Training that was offered by the ADF. Eisenhower had attended the Militia’s senior armed-forces school and the impact to this was deemed to be elemental for him to be posted to the War-Department during the 1930s. His assignments were of high-level as they accustomed him to tackle notions that were of significance to the armed forces. During the year 1930, Eisenhower was an out of the ordinary assistant to MacArthur Douglas, who was then the Chief-of-Staff. During his period as an assistant, Eisenhower did a number of things encompassing: drafting the Speeches of MacArthur; preparing annual reports; and lobbying the congress5. Eisenhower was a trustworthy person. He did a number of hush-hush works for MacArthur and they encompassed: careful scrutiny of mobilization, and the correlations amid the nationwide industrial capacities and the militia power. Dwight talents were then seen by MacArthur who regarded Eisenhower as being the best due to his capability to handle problems as well as his principal potency. Eisenhower assisted MacArthur, more so in defending the ambassadorial islands as armed forces. Moreover, they frequently harmonized with High-Commissioner of America as well as with the Philippine centralized government. Ideally, Eisenhower was capable of studying those problems that are correlated with expanding the Militia. Doing so, he took hold of the soldier-citizen nature force that he had assisted in implementing it. In lieu of this, it was apparent that the Militia’s folklores along with their disciplines were deemed to be inappropriate in mobilizing the media. As a war-fighting leader, Dwight opted to train the new-fangled militias in a manner that was thorough and also guaranteed that this new-fangled soldiers comprehended the foremost reasons of their assigned tasks. Likewise, Dwight had scrutinized officer’s problems and thus commenced grappling with command-of-combat units. As such, he was very successful in higher-command and stipulated officers to be logical and to conduct themselves in an orderly manner without acting in a manner that was deemed to be slow. The pre-war training culmination by Eisenhower was evident in the year 1941 in the maneuvers of Louisiana, which were deemed to be the most prevalent and down-to-earth in the US. As Vuono observes, “Third Army decisively defeated Lt. Gen Ben Lear’s opposing Second Army in wide-ranging war games that got national publicity, and in which Eisenhower was credited with devising Third Army’s plan of the battle”.6 Also, Eisenhower was wise. He had been appointed as an assistant to Marshall. The approach that he employed in carrying out his duties was deemed to be elemental. Actually, he commenced by figuring himself in the current circumstance of Marshall and made up his mind as it would have been done by Marshall. This generated first-rate results and as such, Eisenhower was continuously assigned stipulating problems that fully-tested his capabilities. For instance, he was placed in the War-Plans Divisions and made accountable for putting in order the Philippines support and to that effect, unresolved problems emerged. He endeavored at assisting the Philippines Militia with defense but his efforts were deemed to be fruitless. This is in view of the notion that his attention had been dominated by Pacific-Fleet calamity. Dwight had a fighting spirit as he kept on writhing with his assigned-duty and commenced tackling other notions that were regarded as being broad. For example, during the last month of the year 1941, the Great Britain affirmed Dwight’s stratagem and coming up with the Combined Chief-of-Staff who will be elemental in directing war. Eisenhower critique as regards to the European Circumstance greatly impressed those individuals who had attended the conference. As the War-Plans division chief, Dwight drafted a fundamental stratagem for the war aligned with the Axis. In addition to that, Dwight came up with a document that gave a précis of the war in the following 3 years. As per his scrutiny, a number of sought-after endeavors are likely to be pursued by their alliance if there was existence of enough resources that will be elemental in tackling each predicament. However, it is deemed to be critical, more so if the militia put their concentration on the operations that are of necessity in overwhelming the Axis. “In his view, such a resolutely disciplined strategic conception offered the only hope of victory”.7 Eisenhower elucidated on those actions that are of necessity in evading defeat and at the same time organizing the militia. Nevertheless, Dwight elucidated the discrepancies between the sought-after and the necessary security that ought to be encompassed in America and thus, making it capable of sustaining the America Union. Eisenhower was also an observant individual. He suggested of a distasteful operation that would be capable of directly defeating the Axis. According to him, the utmost perilous foe was Germany and thus, in order to overwhelm that nation, the coalition members ought to attack it in a simultaneous manner and the Great-Britain can utilize the Northern part of France as a base of attack. In reality, this plan will be of advantageous to the Great-Britain as it was already receiving its needs from America and as such, additional demands that were needed for the attack were very minimal and they encompassed: the escort vessels along with the shipping vessels. The United Kingdom had a base that was deemed to be very close and had manifold air-fields. Ultimately, it was deemed to be a place that was logical, particularly in employing the forces from the British Empire8. Nevertheless, he was dedicated to his accountabilities. The utmost focus of Eisenhower was on war. The mission that was to be accomplished by the Great-Britain as well as the US was depicted by his work and to that effect, he was promoted to the Commanding-General. He continued looking at predicaments the way Marshall could have perceive them. But he employed the policies of the Chief-of-Staff to work out those problems. Fortunately, he was very successful in working-out problems because the outset of Marshall was being utilized by the grand-alliance that was in opposition with the axis. In those areas that involved policy, Marshall’s conception was greatly utilized in providing guidance. As Vuono affirms, “Eisenhower was perfectly attuned to his chief’s ideas, and was the ideal officer to translate Marshall’s grand strategy into practice”.9 The leadership by Eisenhower was deemed to be very effective. This is in view of the notion that he gave himself over in: building an affiliation that was solid with allies from the Great Britain; he ensured that his staff is energized; and managed BOLERO operations. After being appointed as the Commander-in-chief, he opposed the TORCH decision as it diverted the resources from Europe and worried him a lot. Superlatively, the operation’s intricacy and extent was dependent on landings that were amphibious and were deemed to be risky as his militia had little experience. After much critique, Eisenhower found out that the coalition affair, which encompassed the armed-services, was regarded as being logistical. Eisenhower was deemed to be an organized individual. Proper organization was deemed to be the utmost elemental plan in guaranteeing that a plan will be executed in a successful manner. The Combined Chiefs-of-Staff endeavored at ordering Eisenhower as they preferred to be answerable to only one federal government. Eisenhower possessed a number of leadership qualities and they encompassed: cooperativeness; individuality; sense of sanguinity; willpower; permeated staff; and creation of the friendly atmosphere for his staff. Ultimately, his utmost responsibility was to guarantee that system is functioning in a manner that is deemed to be effective. He was prudent. Eisenhower was faced with a challenge that led to the hullabaloo as regards to how the landing-craft will be distributed amid a number of contending theaters. The Joint Chief-of-Staff of the Americans became very furious with Eisenhower. Dwight squeezed-out those vessels that were crucial with the endeavor of carrying out the overlord. Politically, he remained firm as regards to why anvil is of necessity despite the notion that the then Prime Minister was against the idea and preferred the Mediterranean to utilize those resources. Dwight was able to put a stop to the allocation of equipments along with scarce-men to be utilized in a different place in the theater. Eventually, Eisenhower attested himself as being correct as regards to security issues. He was very determined, particularly in debates and this buttressed his Supreme Commander’s authority. To him, it was elemental to attain a consensus other than winning a controversy but success was dependent on how the plans will be executed in an enthusiastic manner. Ideally, most controversies were being worn by Eisenhower who in turn put into consideration the opinions of his opponents. In fact, Eisenhower “was rarely abrupt and never arbitrary and applied the particular genius of his own personality to persuade other men to accept a common strategy”.10 The reputation of Dwight was widely recognized by his candidness and sincerity and this had a great contribution to be successful in coming up with a campaign plan that was truly allied other than nationwide plans that were parallel. In conclusion, we can say that Eisenhower accepted the notion of being accountable in coming up with pivotal pronouncements at the crucial points and the alliance from the west. As a matter of fact, quite a number of his dramatic decisions as well as the preannouncements he had prepared himself in the duration of his career as a militia, led to the Allied-Victory in the year 1945 and in Europe. In addition to that, Eisenhower was devoted in finding the likely causes of peace. Doing so, he found the nationwide good. This was due to the notion that he was capable on conceiving it at the time when he was the Commander-in-Chief of the US. American individuals as well as individuals from abroad put their self-reliance and faith in Eisenhower. This was in view of the fact that Dwight’s epoch incarnated self-sacrifice and benevolence. Both as a states-man and militia, Eisenhower was devoted to his duties. “Perhaps the best characterization of the man comes from his own words in a speech he delivered in June 1945”11 at the time when he was acknowledging the award he had received in which he asserted that modesty ought to be practiced by any individual who is being awarded due to the sacrifices he/she made to not only his followers but also his friends. Bibliography Brewer, Rodney. Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group. Available from http://www.military.com/HomePage/UnitPageHistory/1,13506,200183|966142,00.html, accessed 15 February 2013. Jordan, Jonathan. Brothers, Rivals, Victors: Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the Partnership that Drove the Allied Conquest in Europe. New York: NAL Calibre, 2011. Medhurst, Martin. Dwight D. Eisenhower: Strategic Communicator. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1993. Miller, William. Two Americans : Truman, Eisenhower, and a dangerous world. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012. William Miller, Two Americans : Truman, Eisenhower, and a dangerous world (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012), 416. Vuono, Carl, and M. P. W. Stone. Dwight D. Eisenhower: The Centennial. Washington DC. Available from http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Ike/ike.htm, accessed 13 February 2013. Read More