This report has been professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction. Global tensions and threats such as terrorist acts continue to pressure America's effort to provide peace and stability to regions around the world. Consequently, military leaders have traditionally been called to protect American interests at home and abroad. Today's Army is faced with the important task of producing competent leaders who can successfully accomplish America's worldwide endeavor to combat the contemporary challenges it faces. Yet, the process of developing individuals into consummate leaders requires a great deal of time, planning, resourcing, and a collection of skilled cadre. Illustrating the meaningful development of victorious wartime leaders is one way to educate today's aspiring leaders. General Dwight D. Eisenhower and General George S. Patton Jr. demonstrated superb leadership in World War II. Their childhood upbringing, military education, Army assignments, as well as the mentoring they received during the interwar period essentially strengthened their development, making them triumphant leaders. Therefore, Eisenhower and Patton's leadership growth, coupled with their personal determination to become successful commanders in World War II, is an indispensable model and a valuable lesson for today's leaders.

Eisenhower's role in World War II was truly unique. Never before had a military commander been asked to accomplish a task of such magnitude as the conquest of Western Europe with such disparate forces and with such little real authority. What is more, Eisenhower's prescribed endstate was not a negotiated peace, but the enemy's "unconditional surrender"—a term that served great rhetorical purposes, but was never defined in either military or political terms. No one prior to World War II had ever held joint command of ground, air, and naval forces. No American had ever directed the combined forces of allied nations. Contemporary coalition commands that were formed in the Pacific, Middle East, and Southwest Asia were much less complex. They were generally focused exclusively on either land or sea operations, and all were much smaller. Eisenhower's massive unified command of joint and multinational forces was unparalleled in the war by either the Allies or the Axis. It is highly doubtful that anyone other than Eisenhower could have achieved victory on the terms he did, sustaining Allied unity and resolve through four bitter campaigns, and building a level of cooperation and trust with the Soviets that allowed him to compel a simultaneous German surrender on both fronts. What is more, Eisenhower did what General George C. Marshall and Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, the principal candidates for his ultimate command, could not or would not have done— establish himself as a true field commander who maintained real operational control of land and air combat forces at his headquarters.