I was only four at the time so I appreciated this history lesson which always seems to be given barely a mention.
This intervention of Eisenhower's may have done more to put an end to European colonialism than any single event in the postwar period.
Maybe that was a good thing, because it got a difficult process over with.
In any case, the whole business has been thrown down the memory hole, because leftists simply cannot admit that the U.S. did more than the U.S.S.R. to end colonialism.
The U.S. never had colonies in the European sense, and it never supported colonialism. We did intervene in places like the Phillipines and Cuba, but not with the intention of building a colonial system like those of Britain and France. But the left simply refuses to admit it, because the U.S. has to be the chief villain.
Like you, I was very young (1-1/2 yo) so I have no memory of this time but I think poster rmlew is right on the mark on the unintended consequences that were set in place by the choices made in this time just to avoid looking like an "imperial colonialist" or supporter thereof. In the near-term to this action, it probably emboldened Castro when he nationalized American holdings in Cuba. For the longer-term, the alliances of Arabs to the USSR kept us pinned down as they attempted to overcome Israel.