[June 10, 2020] There are many characteristics of strong leaders. They are sincere, decisive, charismatic, honest, and have great communication skills. History is replete with examples. U.S President Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of those strong leaders. Just a few months into his presidency, America’s foreign policies came under fire1 for allowing the U.S. to be too involved around the world.
Known as a man of few words, Eisenhower nevertheless made it clear that America would reject isolationism, outright. Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) and USAF General Hoyt Vandenberg issued challenges to the new president’s conduct of foreign affairs.
Taft (son of President Taft) argued that if things did not work out in the Korean War that we should withdraw from the United Nations coalition and make a new policy dealing with North Korea and their Chinese allies. Vandenberg (Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force) was critical of Eisenhower’s proposal to cut $5 billion from the Air Force budget.
President Eisenhower responded to both in a speech at the National Junior Chamber of Commerce on this date, June 10, 1953. He began by characterizing the Cold War with the Soviet Union as a battle “for the soul of man himself.” Eisenhower rejected the idea that the U.S. should pursue an independent foreign policy or what is called the “fortress” theory of defense. Instead, he insisted that all free nations had to stand together. This has continued as the cornerstone idea behind all American foreign policies since that time.2
To Vandenberg’s criticisms of the new Air Force budget, Eisenhower explained that vast numbers of aircraft like we saw during World War II were not needed in the new atomic age. Just a few planes could carry nuclear weapons to the enemy and deliver as much destruction as did our entire air effort on Germany throughout WWII.
This rejection of new, revised isolationism was to become a long-standing strategy of U.S. foreign affairs. It remains so today. Thus, by standing firm on these two issues, President Eisenhower was able to establish his position as the Commander in Chief and ultimate authority in foreign matters. Today, the president’s power to determine foreign engagements is under fire and will always be subject to debate.
————-
Another spot-on blog post. Thanks Gen. Satterfield.
We would like more articles like this that help us understand better those men who were the most successful leading our nation.
Throughout the Cold War, the US remained internationalists, sometimes too much so.
Yes, and that got us the Vietnam War.
This is why we should study not just war and specific battles but the background leading up to a war and what was the decision-making process of leaders at the time. Study the political leader thought processes and also what military leaders thought of them and how to accomplish their mission. Were they all in synch? Did they believe in what they were to do? Did they butt heads? I believe this is the sort of intelligent thoughts that help us in the future to make us better leaders. Along with accepting more responsibility, studying past actions also helps us.
Well said, JT. That is why when Gen. Satterfield gives us some insight into chosen autobiographies, we can start to ‘see’ a little of that process. ?
Interesting that USAF General Hoyt Vandenberg retired shortly after making that comment. I guess someone told him his time was up. If you work for the president, you do what he says or you’re out. The same today.
On this day in history June 10, 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered a speech National Junior Chamber of Commerce meeting in Minneapolis where he laid out his “New Look” foreign policy, which rejected isolationism in the Cold War and emphasized nuclear weapons for defense.
Right, six months into Eisenhower’s presidency, the United States was still fighting the Korean War, which formed the basis of Taft and Vandenberg’s complaints to the president.
Eisenhower’s “New Look” foreign policy looked to keep the American economy “vital” but “build” defenses to fight the Cold War, maintain nuclear weapons as a “deterrent,” use the CIA for covert actions and maintain and build alliances in the world. Part of the “New Look” policy was the philosophy of “more bang for the buck” when it came to defense spending.
Good comment and analysis. We are better off today overall than if we had gone the route encouraged by Taft.
“Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Lots more people in the USA now but the quote still applies. I think he was talking about himself a little here.
Informative leadership blog post. Thanks. Enjoyed taking a journey back in time. I would have liked a little more on his thinking process. While I think Eisenhower was right, based on my limited study of history, why did he want to take us out of that isolationist view?
Good question and one that deserves answering. I think here, however, is not the right time for it. We have some very pressing issues going on in the US and they should be discussed first. Like what the heck is happening in Minneapolis on defunding the police? Or why is one of our politcal parties accepting such an idea?
Very good article on a great man. You don’t have to like him to study how great he was or that he didn’t have his heart in the Korean War and thus pushed for a stalemate that has haunted the world ever since with the Kim family of North Korea.
You are right but it is, I think, a bit unreasonable to look that far into the future. America was still tired of war after WWII. The Korean War started only 5 years at WWII’s end. The US military was totally unprepared for another conflict and everyone was rebuilding their economies.
True and nobody in the West cared about “Orientals.”
Sad but true. Not only were we unprepared but we went into an isolationist mode anyway. Eisenhower was trying to pull us out of that inward looking ideology.
Dennis, good point here. The US was now the leader of the free world and maybe didn’t want to be.