Question #1 The purpose of this essay is to present a brief statement of Eisenhower’s critical thinking as the commander of the Mediterranean Theater in 1942-43 using the Critical Thinking Model proposed by Dr. Steve Gerras. Two of Eisenhower’s decisions or actions will be assessed using components of the Critical Thinking Model to determine if he did or did not demonstrate critical thinking. The model used in this discussion is a derivative of the Paul and Elder model. The elements of the model discussed throughout this analysis are clarify concern, assumptions and, inferences . First, it will be assessed the Darlan Deal and Torch Landing. This analysis should reflect indeed if Eisenhower’s decisions were in concert with the Critical Thinking Model already established. Whereas an assumption is something we take for granted, an inference is an intellectual act in which we conclude something based on a perception as to how the facts and evidence of a situation fit together . The military dimension and the outcome of Eisenhower action is interrelated to the political arena and its consequences. At first, political leader expressed to the Supreme Commander that he could use any mean to secure the West and North Africa including Admiral Darlan and his forces to be part of the Allied forces. This strategic goal set the tone for Eisenhower to put an action plan in place and to strike a deal with Darlan. Nevertheless, the Darlan deal seemed to be a failure because soon after a deal was struck, Washington and London condemned him on the public opinion. GEN Eisenhower’s decision became a political liability for both Allied countries. The desired effect to make a neutral actor into an allied was his aim. His inference to make a relev... ... middle of paper ... ... as a great communicator because he was able to build consensus all around especially in a joint and multinational environment. Indeed, his qualities of a great communicator proved he had the ability to make unquestioned decisions even though he was criticized numbers of times. He also proved himself capable of shape thoughts in dealing with the unprecedented strategic challenges that AFHQ faced. That is why he was able to develop an Allied Campaign Plan based on consent and persuaded other men to accept this common strategy. Lastly, Eisenhower demonstrated confidence in his decision-making influences and his vision for final victory as well his ability to stand up to political leaders, peers, public scrutiny and criticism. The combination of a clear vision and the ability to communicate with others was paramount in his success as the Supreme Allied Commander.
During World War II commander, General Eisenhower made little or no decisions in operations. He generally relied on his senior commanders to plan and execute the actual missions. He spent most of his time making strategic level decisions. Two noteworthy decisions Eisenhower made occurred during Operations CORKSREW and OVERLORD. Though the Allied forces were successful in both Operations, Eisenhower failed to apply critical thinking during Operation CORKSCREW however with experience in war; he matured
The Allied invasion of Sicily in July 1943 was a success.1 Codenamed Operation HUSKY, it was the largest amphibious operation of World War II.2 Although successful, if further evaluated by today’s modern joint doctrine, Operation HUSKY accentuates the breakdown and weakness of the Allies’ operational integration of the six current joint functions, and its costly affects that likely prolonged the war. Lessons learned from Operation HUSKY accentuate the importance of all six modern joint functions