They don't hardly fire generals
any more. Some have noted that it's been over half a century since the U.S. last
fired generals during wartime. That was during the Korean War, when seven of
them were dismissed. During World War II, 95 were fired during their first
three months of combat. In World War I, 21 got tossed. In both World Wars,
France fired at least a hundred generals in the first three months of combat.
Russia was even worse, and they also shot some of the dismissed commanders. Until
a few centuries ago, it was quite common to behead unsuccessful generals.
But not so
much anymore. Part of that is because there have not been that many big wars
since Korea. There were big wars in India (with Pakistan), between the Arabs
and Israel, and between Iraq and Iran, where there have been generals
dismissed. But not as much as in the past (with the exception of Iraq, where
Saddam fired most of his generals eventually, but that had more to do with
loyalty, than competence, issues.)
selected more carefully, at least in the West, during the past half century.
There's been a lot more care all around. That, combined with fewer large wars,
results in fewer generals getting tossed. Oh, generals still get the sack, but
it's done differently. Early retirement and lack of promotion is another way of
firing someone, and it is used a lot.
the most common cause of generals getting into trouble is "zipper
control" (sex with the wrong person). It's an old problem. Back in 1912 a U.S.
admiral suddenly resigned because, it was later found out, he was forcing his
affections on a comely cabin boy.