Do Army Generals Carry Pistols or Rifles in Their Field Headquarters?

A general’s primary role is to manage the battlefield, not engage in combat directly. As such, they typically carry a defensive weapon just in case. Such a practice not only serves as a deterrent but also as a way to set a strong example. The common advice is that a general should have a pistol, no matter the situation. However, there is no strict requirement, and it largely depends on the personal preference and the specific conditions in the field.

Choosing the Right Weapon

Generals in a combat zone usually carry a pistol for defensive purposes. The choice of pistol can vary; it may be a standard issue or a personally preferred model. For instance, in my time in Iraq, the division commander preferred Glocks, even though the standard issue at the time was the M9 Beretta. In Vietnam, the standard was the M1911, which is a reliable and widely-known sidearm.

Non-Combat Scenarios

During non-combat operations, it’s quite common for generals to carry an unloaded M1911, assuming the situation doesn’t warrant a more dangerous weapon. The reasoning behind this is that if the enemy gets close enough to pose a threat, the general is likely dealing with a much broader and more dire situation, one in which all lives are at risk, not just their own.

Field Headquarters

When it comes to their field headquarters, generals typically do not carry weapons, as their role is more about strategic management rather than direct engagement. However, there are a few situations where a general might be required to keep a weapon on hand. For example, at a Forward Operating Base (FOB), having a weapon is standard procedure. This is especially true when a general has high-ranking positions, carrying multiple stars on their epaulettes or buttons.

Personal Preference and Perks

Generals are often issued a pistol, and they can opt to carry a personal one if they wish. However, it’s important to note that personal weapon carrying is not mandatory. The mentality is that the general’s weapon is the soldiers under their command. Furthermore, it’s quite rare for a general to have an opportunity to use their weapon in a combat setting, as by the time they would need to, the situation would have escalated beyond what a pistol could address.

Conclusion

In summary, while army generals may carry pistols for personal security, this practice is more prevalent in combat zones than in field headquarters. The common wisdom is to carry a pistol during non-combat scenarios, but the decision ultimately depends on the specific circumstances and personal preferences. At field headquarters, generals generally do not carry weapons, focusing instead on strategic oversight and management.