Why Colonel and top rank Army are not killed during the war, instead just soldiers are killed?

Question

Is it because top rank army are from upper class and are appointed just to order? Or soldiers don’t know how to avoid staying in a front line?
The same is true with the religion terrorist groups , their leaders are just hiding somewhere and send the simple ignorant follower to fight or commit suicide, non of the religion terrorist leaders go to the front line to fight. Unfortunately just innocent and poor people are the main victim of the war, because even the rich people have a more money and power to move and find a save place quickly.
and majority of soldiers are from working class and poor families !!!!

Answer 1

good question. i think it's because the military is generally organized like society. the rich exploit the poor for personal gain. top brass do not fight because they deemed 'too valuable' to the war effort i guess. the poor are always the victims in war. whether they be the poor soldier who joined up to pay for college or the poor civilian whose house was bombed while they were eating dinner. meanwhile the top brass sit back and collect their medals.

Answer 2

Well, terrorist leaders are cowards. In most western armies, the officers must get university degrees and earn their way to the top. Thus, most of the generals and colonels are experienced me who have been on the front lines fighting for some time before they lead.

I know in other countries this is not the case, but in the US, all of our top soliders have served for many years. In fact, General Colin Powell (former US Secretary of State) came from a black family.

Usually, the leadership has already proven themselves in combat, and are good at is, and that's why they've survived. You don't kill a General whose survived three wars actually fighting them and then became an excellent tactican simply so Pvt. Joe from Kansas doesn't get killed.

The better trained, more experienced, and older (usually wiser) men lead the younger from the rear because someone who knows how all the pieces work has to coordinate all the different troops.

Answer 3

I know you cant be american because I cant fathom a native born american to spew this nonesense. Top military officials dont lay down in the dirt and fight for the same reason osama bin laden doesnt strap a bomb to his chest and kill a couple dozen people in a market. In the US Military, people arent just given the rank of general. They need to complete the necessary training and go through the ranks. The highest rank you can be assigned coming in to the military is typically a captain(O-3) and those slots are reserved for doctors, lawyers, and chaplains. So those guys arent even leading troops into battle. Infantry officers all start out at the bottom and spend typically 15 years in before they can command a battalion. And at least 5 before they command a company. So these generals have all been in and serving for 20+ years before they get to that point. So bringing us back to why they dont fight, simple, why potentially waste 20 years of expertise and knowledge and leadership skills on the chance they get killed? They are too important and every soldier knows and understands that. Generals fly around in helicopters and dont ride humvees for that same reason. US servicemembers are not simple ignorant followers because in this country it is voluntary to serve in the military. Nobody is making people join. Everyone in Iraq is there because they signed up to go.

Answer 4

Not entirely sure you are looking for an answer since you seem to have a set opinion but in any case ...

Of course more "soldiers" (by that I assume you mean lower ranks) are killed in warfare, simply because professional armies work on a pyramid structure like any other organisation, incl terrorists, i.e there are more privates than generals serving, therefore logically there are more privates killed than generals.

The second point is that it is an accepted rule of warfare that to suceed and defeat your enemy, there is little sense in letting your commanders and leaders (by definition your "best" resource) make themselves more likely to get killed than your footsoldiers.

However, you should note that in the 1914-1918 War for UK and Commonwealth forces, there is a general consensus that a higher proportion of commission officers were killed or wounded than other ranks, although the exact figures vary.

FYI 58 British Generals (excl Commonwealth) were KIA or died of wounds in the 1914-1918 War which does not reinforce the traditional image of generals in WW1.

Even in recent times, in Iraq, nearly a quarter of the 100+ UK forces members killed since 2003 were commissioned officers, a massively high ratio compared to the ratio of officers serving.

To boil death in conflict down to some sort of quasi-Marxist agenda over-simplifies the sacrifices many people have willingly and knowingly made, however misguided, for what they believe is their duty, and leaves noone any closer to figuring out how to avoid the filthy mess that is war.

Answer 5

Because like George Orwell said in Animal Farm, "everybody are the same, but some of us are more same"; the people with rank, influence and money always are in the back ( it´s more safe). That´s why in the hole congress only one or two congress man have sons in Iraq, because they loved and don´t want to be killed, instead the army can find a lot of hillbillies, africa-americans and latins to do the hard and danguerous job.
That´s too for Bush and Clinton in the 70¨s with the Vietnam war, they hide in the pocket of Daddy.

Answer 6

So far in Iraq the RAF highest rank killed is a Wg Cdr. This is not that the higher ranking officers are avoiding the combat, but their role is not one of front line.

Answer 7

Strange question. Would you suggest that armies should use their expensive, highly educated and trained officers as cannon fodder and use the cheap, less intelligent grunts to think up the strategies and battle plans?

Or is it a trick question? The thing is, I doubt that someone who could switch on a PC and learn to use a keyboard would ask such a question.

Answer 8

Perhaps you should ask the people doing all the killing.

Strategically, if you kill a leader all you get is a new leader you know nothing about. Killing soldiers at least you upset voters.

Besides you have to work harder to kill a leader. you can kill a soldier much easier.

Common sense and strategy.

Answer 9

Most higher grade officers do not participate in the actual fighting, but remain at headquarters directing the action. In my opinion, they should stay close to hand, because it's better to command if you know what's happening on the ground, as it's happening; plus there's more opportunity for military glory.

Answer 10

It takes years to become a Colonel or General. You have to keep them safe because they are too hard to replace. All armies do this. Experience does count and is needed in war.