Why do (some) dictator colonels not appoint themselves general?

Well if the dictator makes himself general then who does he boss around and if he does boss someone around is he bossing them around as the dictator or the general? If I am a dictator I want high ranking people to boss around to show my authority.

Also if something major goes wrong, I blame it on the general or possibly hang him. There is no scapegoat for war operatives if you are fulfilling the same role.

(yes I know this is more of a comment but this is just dictator 101 and needs to be thought of)

As I understand it with reference to UK history (Gaddafi was after all trained in by British officers) the distinction is that a Colonel was the head of a regiment which was the fundamental permanent unit a soldier belonged to. The Colonel was responsible for funding, raising and equipping. They were usually a wealthy aristocrat or member of the royal family, though the sale of military commissions would generate revenue.

Brigadiers, General on the other hand were potentially temporary command appointments perhaps for a campaign with multiple regiments deployed together and a Colonelship might continue to be held in parallel. Reforms in the late 19th century centralized funding of the Army and made Colonel into just another step in the the rank hierarchy. (Many regiments also have the sponsorship of a member of the Royal Family as an honorary Colonel.)

Colonel works pretty well as a rank for the leader of the permanent military organization.

In both the French and British militaries, colonel is the highest rank short of general. Colonels generally command regiments; generals are in charge of larger groups like divisions, corps, or entire armies. This has two implications:

• Colonels usually have more direct exposure to the men under their command, since they tend to be more directly involved in the administration of campaigns
• Generals are often closely connected to governing regime, interacting directly with rulers while commanding from the back lines; there is far less politics in the appointment of a colonel than in the appointment of a general

With that in mind, dictatorial states are often formed through revolution: through some successful rebellion against an established regime. Those at the rank of colonel are in an optimal position to be leaders in such revolutions:

• They have relative political anonymity, being outside the inner circle of governance, and thus can operate with a greater degree of freedom and secrecy
• They have an entire regiment of trained soldiers who (after a few years of trials in combat) may have a good deal of personal loyalty directly to the colonel
• They have direct command over a reasonable stockpile of arms and munitions that can be applied to the revolution itself.

Generals are in a more precarious position. A general who is exposed as a revolutionary too early will be executed by the regime; one who hangs back too late will be associated with the defeated regime and executed by the revolutionaries. And once a new regime has established itself, the leader effectively leaves the ranks of the army and takes on a political role. He is likely to stick with the title and rank he held to remind others of his role in the revolution, and has effectively skipped over the higher rank of general in order to become ruler, so there's no real need to promote himself.

Pure speculation, but maybe it is because colonel is the highest ranking officer who (occasionally) sees actual combat. A general is tucked safely away in a command center. Therefore colonel has a more martial/macho connotation than general.

1. It is not necessary. The army generals are OK taking orders from "Colonel X", because he is the head of state, whether or not he is a higher rank. (If they weren't, the Colonel wouldn't be head of state). Generals are used to taking orders from civilians outside the military chain of command. A dictator's power doesn't depend on his rank.

2. Arbitrary promotions show contempt for the military. Making yourself head of state is one thing. The Army is probably OK with that, or it wouldn't have happened. But giving yourself a military rank higher than the people who have earned it on merit? That's going to annoy the army. Dictators who annoy the army don't usually survive long.

3. Ranks are permanent, government is temporary. A head of government is no longer in command when he stops being head of government. Generals get to keep commanding even after the reason for their promotion is done. The military probably prefers that the new dictator doesn't give himself a title that will live forever.

It's also not clear that "Colonel" is the norm. Only two examples of dictators using the title "Colonel" have been presented.