Let’s see:

The general(s) know a significant portion of the war strategy - Allowing one to be killed could impair mission. Allowing one to be captured could be disastrous. If your enemy has your general(s) alive you either have to change your current plans radically, withdraw or risk being ambushed and then slaughtered.

It would be a PR disaster - Having a tired and defeated-looking or injured general put on display by your enemy for the whole world (especially the people back home) to see would be a nightmare. Even a military winning a conflict would have to deal with the fact that one its leaders is being held by the enemy and could be displayed or even publicly executed at any time.

It would be nearly useless in modern warfare to have them there - Few modern conflicts are the melee or regimented conflicts of the past. The “front” could be spread over dozens, or even hundreds, of miles. There may be no defined “front line” as in the case of a guerrilla conflict. The general going to the “front” would likely be standing around looking or be hunkered down behind some cover. Not very effective, that.

General are almost never young people; nor are they highly skilled combatants - Most general are in their early 50’s to mid-60s. While they may be in good shape for people of their age, they are also decades older than most of the combatants They may be a crack shot; however if the units that they are inspecting/visiting have to retreat rapidly, the general’s presence may prove to be a liability more than a benefit.

There‘s also the ticklish fact that while many generals are highly intelligent people and excellent strategists , they may not be the most effective field soldiers. Having a middle-aged person who can’t shoot well and who may not perform well in a CQB (close quarters battle) or a hand-to-hand combat scenario really doesn’t help the forward unit “blessed” by the general’s presence.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-generals-go-into-battle-anymore

says who , I know some who gave a good account of themselves in the north East.

This is the 21st century. You hardly need generals in the field. They can monitor the battlefield electronically.

Nigerdeltaboi:
says who , I know some who gave a good account of themselves in the north East.

Doesn't make it proper though. Like the article describes, a general captured, displayed by the enemy or even killed on camera is a massive PR disaster and a major morale "destabiliser".



The article is also from Quora, one of the world's largest military think-tanks. They are Pakistani.

Noted and acted