This article in the Age newspaper

http://www.theage.com.au/world/deadly-reapers-stalk-their-quarry-over-afghan-skies-20090323-97es.html

prompts me to ask the following question, what really is a “cowardly attack“?

We hear the term used often and in bold print, “Sri Lanka vows ‘cowardly attack’ will not affect Pakistan relations” or “Cowardly attack will not derail process - Brown” and “U.S. Seeks Culprits Behind Cole Attack ... we track down the individuals responsible for this...cowardly attack," defense secretary William Cohen said.”

Quite possibly a case could be made that all of these incidents had an element of cowardness in them. However the attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers did involve exchanges of gunfire with armed police, the Northern Ireland episode was an attack on an army base and the USS Cole assault was a highly armed warship in which the attackers blew themselves up.

Last year approximately 7000 Taliban were said to have perished, most of those from munitions from the sky. These were delivered primarily by jet pilots whose greatest threats come from their own side. They are not opposed by any enemy airforce and few weapons used by the Taliban are capable of reaching them even at relatively low levels. Admittedly there is the risk of capture after mechanical malfunctions or such like.

However the Reaper crews discussed in The Age article sit in “darkened control rooms” “12,000 kilometres away” where the “most dangerous part of their day is the drive between the base and their homes”. “It is, quite simply, the most risk-free form of combat”.

So I am wondering what needs to be present for an attack to be deemed cowardly? Is the risk to the attacker relevant? Is the military status of the victims the key? Or is it primarily the nature of the attack itself?

The Northern Ireland attacks seemed cowardly to me, two army personnel shot dead whilst receiving delivered pizza. Very brave.

A couple of days later Police were responding to an emergency call (hoax?) and attacked by the IRA, a father of three executed. Shot from behind, an apt example of cowardly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/europe/11ireland.html

Hey Rojo,

This is what I am keen to explore. Does the fact that the soldiers were collecting pizzas make the attack more cowardly in your eyes? If so why? Does the fact that the policeman was shot from behind add to the cowardness quota? Would a sniper shot from a distance be more or less cowardly? The potential risk to the perpetrator is lessened with distance. Does this influence our judgement of the act? If so how do we then judge the Raptor 'pilots'?

Or ultimately is the determining factor whose side you are on?

I'd have thought the use of the term "cowardly attack" is a way of turning public opinion against an opponent which may or may not be deserving of the description - in essence it is a political act.

Often whether or not the claim is true is incidental to the claimant.

'Cowardly' in the term you're referring is from the POV of the recipient which generally means 'an effective attack without immediate recourse which shone light on our weakness'.

From the deliverer it's smart.

Why should I give up on smarts, technology, or sneakiness just to give the enemy an equal chance at killing me?. That's how the British generals of old thought and needlessly cost the lives of many through history.

If you had a baseball bat in your hand and you found yourself behind an intruder in your house late at night who was holding a knife, what would you do?. Tap him on the shoulder, or take advantage of a hole in his defences?.

There IS no such thing as a cowardly attack. There is only effective, or ineffective.

StG,

What you say is true when there are two protagonists fighting over the same thing, where it's a battle to the death.

But what about the situation of a terrorist bombing, for example, where innocent people who wouldn't lift a finger against anyone get killed? It may not exactly be true for them to call it a cowardly attack but certainly understandable when looking at things from their POV.

Yes, the attack is effective but also disproportionate and therefore unjust. In that case, the political use of the term "cowardly attack" is justified.