Case study in command partnership | Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and...

Great Reading Even For A Neophyte | Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace | Mark Perry

books:


	• Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace Mark Perry Penguin (Non-Classics), 2008 - 512 pages average customer review:based on 20 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Recommended by the Secretary of Defense

It's hard to get a more compelling endorsement. This comes from "The Gates Keeper" in the latest edition of Newsweek:

"Lately [Secretary of Defense, Robert] Gates has been telling his friends and colleagues to read "Partners in Command," about Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower."

Case study in command partnership

Surprisingly, a great book on career development and problems in management, set in the context of the most trying of times. In the case of Eisenhower, it is an excellent case study on how to manage a coalition of varying team players and personalities and how to report up to your boss. In the case of Marshall, it is an excellent case study on how to be a boss, both by identifying and promoting talent, managing subordinates (by giving them real responsibility and the trust and support to make their own decisions, even when they make mistakes) and ultimately keeping the organization focused on the broad strategic objectives that will win the war. Plus history to boot. Revealing insofar as the extent to which Eisenhower deferred to Marshall and how Marshall managed Eisenhower and encouraged him. Also interesting how Marshall pulled Eisenhower from obscurity to put him in a position to become supreme commander of Europe, solely by dint of his talent and hard work. Great book for understanding the dynamics of successful leadership and delegation of duties, as well as the keys to personal career success, in the guise of a history book and biography. Touches on the key command issues and battlefield developments to give the story clear historical context. Enlightening in many ways.

for more information click here

Great Reading Even For A Neophyte

Author Mark Perry has provided us with a gem of a book on World War II while concentrating on the relationship between mentor George Marshall and student Dwight Eisenhower. It was not what you would consider a close friendship, but one of guidance in which the student (Eisenhower) eventually surpassed the mentor (Marshall). Throughout his military life Eisenhower sought the guidance of George Marshall. Eisenhower had his hands full after being named head of the European command in World War II, and his mentor, Marshall, was always available to assist even though Marshall, himself, would have loved to have the command. Some felt Marshall would have too much power as part of the combined Chiefs of Staff in addition to head of the European command. Marshall, however, wanted President Roosevelt to make the appointment without regard to Marshall's opinion. When Ike was concerned about the performance of an officer who was an old friend, Marshall told him that any officer who is retained under you means that you are satisfied with his performance. If you are not you must reassign him or send him home. A quality Marshall admired in subordinates was to stand up to authority and express your own opinions. In other words, don't be afraid to disagree with me. Juggling the egos of men such as Winston Churchill, Bernard Montgomery, Alan Brooke, George Patton, Omar Bradley, Mark Clark, and others who each had their own idea of what should be done where and when was a job requiring a great deal of self discipline. Fox Conner, one of America's greatest military thinkers is all but forgotten now, but he was influential in shaping Marshall's and Eisenhower's approach to warfare. One of his axioms was "never fight unless you have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long." They remained convinced that democracies would win only short wars, not protracted conflicts. I found a wealth of information in this book, and the 400 plus pages will keep you riveted from beginning to end. There are certainly lessons to be learned for those who would hope to lead our country today. Whether they would be open to learning from past leaders is another matter.

for more information click here

A Brilliant Study of Two Transformational Leaders

Perry's work is an outstanding survey of two leaders who came of age in the frontier army and grew to shape the institution and alliance that would ultimately fight and win the Second World War. The book sheds little new light on the two men but rather provides an overview of their relationship and their careers.

Perry traces Marshall and Eishenhower through their early career exposure to General of the Armies John J. Pershing and to Major General Fox Connor. He creates a sense of the frustration of the career of the frontier army officer the inevitability of the second world war created by the flawed Treaty of Versailles. I was particularly interested in the intense personal and professional development programs that both Eisenhower and Marshall undertook to prepare themselves to lead armies in battle.

Marshall, who is often neglected in more tactically focused books, comes across as one of the truly great men of contemporary American history. Marshall understood that the second world war was inevitable and that it would be fought and won by American forces lead by American Generals. His black book, compiled during many years of service, identified the men who would ultimately lead America's army during World War II. These men include Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, Clark, Ridgeway, Truscott, Devers, Smith, Taylor, and Gavin.

The book truly reaches its climax in its discussion of the Atlantic Alliance and the political and military machinations required to plan operations in North Africa, Italy and ultimately in France. The brilliance of Marshall and Eisenhower was not tactical. What set them apart was their ability to manage the diverse constituencies and personalities of the alliance while remaining focused on a total unconditional surrender of German forces.

My only wish is that the author had decided to write the book in two volumes. I believe that the final section section of the book that focuses on the post war period is worthy of a book unto itself. Perry makes a convincing argument that Marshall and Eisenhower shaped the post-war world through the creation of the Marshall Plan and NATO.

for more information click here

Why?

From the book's inside jacket: "The depth and significance of the relationship between George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower has eluded historians for years." Really? All of them? What does Mr. Perry bring to the subject the others haven't? Wrong question, because the depth and significance have eluded no one. Over sixty-odd years, historians have thoroughly fleshed out that ten-star relationship. Mr. Perry's 38 pages of footnotes and six more of bibliography suggest he ought to be aware of this.
Why this book, then? Well, as an overview it's as good a place to start as any. Provided one doesn't stop there, for like any other historian Mr. Perry has biases he carries into his work. Perhaps if we ask "Why this book, NOW?", we can see another reason.

The primary theme of the book is not the two men of the title, it is Fox Connor's admonition to "Never fight unless you have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long". This is repeated on a back cover blurb, just in case the reference within the book was too subtle. The sub-theme is an attempted contrast between two giants of our greatest and most successful war, and the current leadership of our current war. It is not explicit, but I believe it is implied. In case this also is too subtle, another back cover blurb by the exquisitly objective Seymour Hersh removes all doubt: "It's somehow very comforting to read about our best war in the midst of our worst one."

These themes are easily dismissed. What leader has ever decided to fight, thinking (at the time) he didn't have to? Having made that decision on the merits, how does the presence or absence of allies bear on the need to make that decision? That is only a secondary regard, but perhaps there is a clue, in the author's info on the inside back cover, to why Mr. Perry would be happy Connor gave it primary stature. Perry is "...coordinator of Conflicts Forum, an *international* political advocacy organization." Maybe he finds it problematic that the U.S. might act unilaterally in its own self-interest. Finally, it is well to never fight for long, but doesn't the enemy have something to say about that? What leader has ever purposely protracted a war? If conspiracy theorists and believers in Ike's military/industrial complex think me naive, let me note how we shortened WWII by a year or more, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regarding a comparison between today's and yesterday's leaders: It makes no sense to do so directly, now. Give it ten, twenty - or sixty - years. Instead, consider this: What if today's media and crop of politicians were transported back. What would they have said about: Kasserine, Omaha beach, the bocage "quagmire", Market-Garden, the Bulge, Huertgen Forest? What would they have done to Marshall's and Ike's reputations?

As an intro to two great men, read it, then go on to Pogue and Ambrose.

for more information click here

reviews: 1, page 2, 3, 4

hot