By Jim Langcuster

It is an interesting question. To be sure, Eisenhower brought a unique skill set to the presidency. He was one of the most knowledgeable and well-trained men to ascend to the presidency, though his training differed from every one of his predecessors.

He could be described as the first bona technocrat to occupy the White House. The only two presidential predecessors who came close were Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover - Hoover especially because he, as a trained engineer, gained fame managing the complexity that had grown out of the Industrial Age. This was especially evident in his efforts to resolve acute food shortages in post-World War I Europe.

Eisenhower, through his Command and General Staff and War college training, was given a thorough-going education in the geo-political challenges facing the United States at the time (i.e., the post-World War I geopolitical and geostrategic outlook), how the various branches of the military - the Army, Army Air Corps, Navy and Marines - each were equipped to deal with these challenges within their respective mission contexts and in conjunction with civilian authority and within the wider context of how western traditions of warfare have evolved over centuries. This included an understanding of how to deploy force both on a tactical and strategic scale and how to sustain it on the basis of adequate force training and logistics.

After completing the War College, Eisenhower effectively possessed a graduate degree, quite rarity among Americans at the time. This, of course, was enhanced by the period he spent working in Washington as an Army congressional liaison, an experience enhanced by his long association with the brilliant but mercurial Douglas MacArthur at the War Department and in the Philippines.

All of this was finished off by his experiences during World War II, first planning global relief efforts on the War Planning Planning Board under General George Marshall and then commanding an inter-Allied force across three operational theaters spanning two continents. This experience was further enhanced by his serving as Army Chief of Staff and, later, as the first NATO Supreme Commander.

No other incoming chief executive brought this level of knowledge and experience of the global situation into the White House. To be sure, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were among the most worldly men of their age, but all lacked formal training in international relations and learned on the job. Eisenhower, on the other hand, brought formal credentials and experience to the job.

Not one of Eisenhower's president successors comes close to this, each essentially products of politics and political struggle rather than of formal training. Indeed, Eisenhower lent his talents to the presidency at a critical juncture in American history when the helm of global leadership essentially was thrust into the nation's hands.

Eisenhower, though certainly aided by the efforts of the Truman Administration, conceived much of the vision and many practices that ensured adequate American helmsmanship. In his landmark presidential farewell address, he also articulated a stern warning to Americans regarding the attending risks associated with America's reluctant assumption of this helm - warnings that largely have been confirmed over the course of time.

Does he deserve to be regarded as the last great American president? What can be argued is that Eisenhower rose to power just as the United States had risen to the pinnacle of greatness, commanding a share of the global economy, along with levels of innovation and industrial output, that no other power in history had previously achieved. This, for a time, obfuscated the deep cultural and political divisions that had rent the United States since its founding and that became widely expressed again roughly a decade following Eisenhower's terms.

To be sure, Eisenhower now figures among the great or near-great presidents in rankings by professional historians. Yet, the question of whether Eisenhower should be regarded as the last great president must be considered within the context of the acute challenges that have faced his successors within the 60-plus years since his presidency.

By Jim Langcuster, 20th century presidential blogger

Is Dwight D. Eisenhower overrated?

There was a concerted effort even during the Eisenhower presidential years to depict Eisenhower as a lackluster chief executive - a disengaged chairman of the board during his presidency. One of the more egregious efforts was undertaken by Kennedy court historian Arthur Schlesinger, who set out very soon after the end of the Eisenhower administration to depict it as a rather colorless, custodial presidency, presided over by a chief executive who spent a lot of time recreating and delegating.

The remarkable thing is that Eisenhower set out precisely with this goal in mind: to create a layered presidential bureaucracy whereby the President would avoid being drowned on the minutiae of mundane governance, which had grown extremely complex by the time he ascended to the presidency.

Bear in mind that the Eisenhower presidency was destined to function as a post-New Deal, Pax Americana institution, one that embodied all of the myriad challenges that had overtaken the country within the last generation, certainly since the advent of FDR and the legacy of World War II.

Eisenhower not only had inherited a massively bureaucratized post-New Deal presidency but also one dealing with the mounting challenge of assuming leadership of the Western alliance system.

Several leaders who had observed Eisenhower disparaged him as a disengaged chief executive. One of them was Khrushchev, who observed in his memoirs that Secretary of State Dulles constantly was passing along papers for review. Yet, that reflected Eisenhower's overall management philosophy.

He wanted complex problems to be inspected and assessed thoroughly by trained experts further down the chain of command so that he could be thoroughly apprised to make the final decision.

Sooner or later some president would have had to undertake a thorough assessment of the presidency and to recommend solutions for reducing the rising levels of complexity associated with it.

Part of the misunderstanding of the Eisenhower presidency stemmed from his successor, JFK, who propelled his own candidacy and popular appeal by advocating the need to inject more youth, vigor and hands-on involvement in what he depicted as moribund Eisenhower presidency.

One interesting facet that is overlooked is the very favorable impression the incoming 35th president gained from his expert briefings by Eisenhower officials and by the President himself and also by the overall transition effort.

He perceived an administration that functioned unusually efficiently.

It altered his initially unfavorable impression of his predecessor - so much that he enlisted the former president as a trusted advisor.