Leaders of Armies used to Lead, They were generals, with respect?

Question

Now they are just old men padding swiss bank accounts using the lives of good kids. I wonder how long any invasion would last if bush or blair was leading the troops?...That would be very novel...especially bush.....what did he do again? lol.....

Answer 1

Leaders of armies have always been old men using young people to fight their battles.

Answer 2

The way war is conducted and the level at which it is fought determines how Generals lead the troops on the ground. In a High & Medium-Intensity warfare, like that of World War II, The Korean Conflict & Desert Storm, there were large formations led by high ranking officers who battle against other large formation led by high ranking officers of the opposing side.

But, in Low-Intensity warfare, like that of Vietnam and currently in Iraq & Afganistan, there were (are) small units, led by Platoon Leaders, Platoon Sergeants and Team Leaders, that sometimes never see their opposition. Therefore it is almost impossible for Generals to lead on the front lines.

And as for political leaders to lead on the front lines...that would be something to see. But the risks are too great and most do not have the experience to do the job, that is why they have Generals.

And it is the Generals who have to direct the training so that those "good kids," will be at their best when it is their time face the onslaught of combat. And it is the Political Leaders who need to give the Generals the support that is needed so that the Generals and their troops can conduct the mission.

Answer 3

He showed up on a carrier a few months after the war started wearing a flight suit and declaired the war over.

Answer 4

Most heirarchies were established by men, who now monopolise the upper levels, thus depriving women of thier rightful share of opportunities to achieve incompetence !!

Answer 5

It is just plain ignorant to expect a president to be on the front lines.