Eisenhower: Soldier and President (The Renowned One-Volume Life)

Ambrose's 'Eisenhower' is a very popular book, if the reviews here are anything to do by. I would seem to be a lone voice of dissent, in that I was not impressed by this tome. Oh, it's not a bad *book* - Ambrose writes well and vividly - it's just a bad BIOGRAPHY. Ambrose himself admits in the first couple of pages that he has immense respect for Ike as a great and good man. Oh dear. That is *never* a good start, to admit that you have strong feelings for your biographic subject one way or the other. What follows is little more than a polished and well-constructed whitewash. Eisenhower's not particularly glorious record as Allied Supreme Commander is transformed into a near-triumph. His poor grasp of tactics (allied to an over-focus on grand strategy), his unbelievably stupid decision to let the Russians beat the US-UK forces to Berlin, and his grave weakness as regards tolerating the idiocy and arrogance of his colleages (Patton, Montgomery) do not seem to matter much to Ambrose.

When we move on to his time as President, things settle down to this chronically slanted norm. With almost the sole exception of his two undisputed triumphs - his ending of the Korean War and his unflinching opposition to the UK-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt three years later - the whitewash brush gets a workout. Ike's mistakes were almost always the fault of others, "it was a different time" (tell that to the survivors of Treblinka, Steve; see what they say back), moral cowardice and inertia is a strength etc. The almost amusingly cynical way Ike was put up as a candidate by the Republicans like some sort of medal-strewn tailors' dummy - with the odious Dick Nixon there in the background to make sure the not overly bright old soldier stayed on-message - is sidelined and barely dealt with. Ambrose agonises over how to present Ike's appalling cowardice on 'too hard' (for him) moral issues - his fence sitting as regards Joe McCarthy's repulsive witch-hunting, and the festering sore of civil rights - as some kind of "he was too nice" virtue. Doesn't fly with me, and I'm amazed it did with others. Where we get into true Whitewash Country is earlier, in the truly pathetic downplaying of Eisenhower's notorious affair with his wartime secretary. We are told that nothing happened, even though everyone and and his dog knows very well that things most certainly did. Ambrose then back-pedals, and admits the affair he claims never happened *did* happen...but it wasn't *actually* an affair, because the one time the secretary and Ike tried to make love he couldn't raise the flag, so to speak. Riiiight. I'm sure Mamie would have appreciated this sterling demonstration of his complete fidelity towards her. My point is not in truth any sort of sniffy outrage at Ike repeatedly cheating on his wife with another woman, but rather amazement at how Ambrose simply refuses to allow *the truth* to get in the way of elevating the man to demi-godhood.

Part of Ambrose's intent in this book is to combat the popular image of Ike as an icon of stagnation in 50s America. The writer succeeds admirably in proving what is surely Ike's best legacy...he presided over a time of massive economic prosperity in America and, for the times, relative military stability. Other than that, this book is a one-note, biased, hagiographic lovesong to a man who had many fine qualities but was flawed as any other of his fellow mortals. You won't see many of those flaws in this book, which renders Dwight D. Eisenhower a disservice. The man himself knew his limitations, the mark of a wise person, but Ambrose refuses to admit that most of those flaws and limits even existed.

This is a great biography on an underrated president, and a very easy read. Ambrose is wonderful in being able to pick out the key incidents and describe the Ike's policies without delving into the everyday details that bog down Robert Caro's biographies. Also, while Ambrose doesn't hide his admiration for Ike, he does reflect critically upon his subject, particularly his slow reaction to civil rights and McCarthy, and his inability to stem the arms race.

Part of Ike's genius was projecting a reassuring calm, while acting to keep all of his options open. For example, he never ruled out using atomic weapons against China in the Korean War or Quemoy Island dispute, but because he kept this option open the Chinese backed down. He was tough, but always left a way out for opponents to back down and save face. Some have wondered whether he truly ranks as a great president because he had no major crisis to face, but I believe Ambrose is right when he says preventing war and managing crises well is perhaps an even greater achievement. I have read many presidential biographies, but have rarely felt that any other president matches the maturity and self-confidence of Ike (George H.W. Bush is another president I think had Ike's maturity in managing the presidency). The difference between Ike in Ambrose's book and the childish pronouncements and discussions of the current Bush administration is startling.

Having said that, I would have been interested in a bit of a longer biography, particularly more details on Ike's use of the CIA in Iran (very relevant today). This has been a very controversial aspect of his presidency and seems somewhat out of character for someone who opposed Israel and Britain during the Suez Canal crisis. Also, we get very little of the cabinet, perhaps because Ike relied on them less than other presidents did - even John Foster Dulles is discussed only where necessary. Ike seems to largely have used his cabinet to give him information, not make decisions. (can you imagine a book about Johnson without a central role for McNamara or Nixon without Kissinger?)

Overall, this is a great book, and will hopeful get more Americans to ponder the presidency and whom we want to sit in the Oval Office.

This is a very good biography of one of our greatest generals and our 34th president. It begins with Dwight Eisenhower's upbringing in turn-of-the-century Kansas. Ike attended West Point, but did not see combat in World War I. His commanding officers in the Army during the interwar years saw that he had great talent, and Eisenhower was ultimately given command of the Allied forces in World War II. The sense of confidence and optimism that Ike was able to engender in those he commanded helped make D-Day a success.

After the war, he became president of Columbia University. He was elected president in 1952, and gained an armistice in the Korean War six months after he took office. While he was in the White House, Ike presided over many years of peace and prosperity, maintaining a growing economy while avoiding budget deficits and inflation. He instituted the Interstate Highway System, but did not act as strongly as he could have on civil rights. Ambrose believed that Eisenhower's caution was an asset in foreign policy but was problematic for his domestic policy.

The book relates that after he left the presidency, Eisenhower was hawkish on Vietnam and advised LBJ to be more aggressive in his attempts to win the war.

Ambrose made no secret of the fact that he was an Eisenhower admirer, but managed to cover pretty fairly both the strengths and weaknesses of Ike's service as general and president. Americans should be grateful for Eisenhower's hand in ending the sinister Nazi regime and for keeping America safe and prosperous during a decade, the Fifties, that was far more dangerous than most members of Generations X and Y realize.

Unless John McCain wins in November, it will be too long before we have our next military hero turned president. They used to all be this way, especially following the Civil War---Democrat and Republican.

Not sure about those reviewers who deemed this a hagiogrpahy or the writing "pedestrian"; the book is thorough, balanced and erudite. I commend the late Mr. Ambrose for such a wonderful portrait of one of America's great leaders in the two most important places: the battlefields and the Oval Office. They surely don't make 'em like Ike anymore (Barack H. Obama?).

The book is long but not exhaustingly long, goes through his humble heartland childhood, early military life, wartime commands, presidency and beyond. Ambrose looks deep into Ike with letters and meetings never read or seen before. What more can one ask for, especially for me as a military historian? Even the descriptions of battles in WW2 are dead on.

I also admire Ambrose for dedicating this book "TO THE MEN OF D-DAY." Again, if even a professor alive today could scribe so eloquently, these losers would be more likely to dedicate a book to Malcolm X or some Hollywood leftist who fought for "the rights of the oppressed." No respect for America or the military, but I digress...

Read the book. It's objective, analytical and important. I will pass it on to my friends and family, so they can better understand our world and thus make the correct judgments and decisions down the road.

Some Americans like to forget history. Shame on them. As Peggy Noonan said of Sen. Obama recently:

America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

Informative and easy to read.
He looks at the subject from many angles and delivers a complete picture of the realities in IKE's world. I personally learned a lot not only about Eisenhower but about WWII, about the times at which he served and about the Cold War. A great book.