Just read about a grunt lying in a ditch, when someone thumps in beside him. Looking up he stares into the eyes of a buddy in the ditch with him, Maxwell Taylor..."Kinda hot around here, ain't it trooper?" he said and jumped up with carbine in hand and moved on.

General Taylor was not one of those content with leading from the rear. I am sure there were many others.

Let's not permit media hype to cloud history. We often do that. Generals have other work to do.

It is not really the place for a General to be in the front lines. That place is reserved for Lieutenants and Captains who lead their platoons and companies into the fight. They often suffer disproportionate casualties as a result.

Generals the like of Patton and Rommel stir our hearts because of their flair and bravery in action but it is the good general who wins wars and campaigns. Generals such as those are usually found in the rear, directing supply lines and organising replacement pools, training areas, etc.

Such 'rear echelon" Generals are often maligned for their lack of flair. Montgomery and Bradley come quickly to mind. But they understand the concept (and the importance) of how an army marches on its stomach.

Generals with the mind of a corporal can never grasp this and lose campaign after campaign, not learning the art of grand strategy.

__________________
If dogs don't go to heaven, I'd like to go where they go.