I always saw the "coward" adjective applicable to those planners and schemers operating from hidden locations to send others...
Well, then, that could be applied to political leaders & upper echelon military, who never go into harms way but make plans and send others.
They are cowards because they refuse to participate in a fair, stand-up fight.
That's silly. If you and I were to scrap, and I've got a 12GA and you've got a .22 Jennings, would you be a coward for refusing to meet in an open field in a 'fair, stand-up fight'? No, you'd be prudent, and would find another method. Using your definition... maybe some could say
our troops are cowards? They fight (in Afghanistan) against a bunch of guys with horses and small arms. What do our guys show up with? Body armor & rifles with expensive optics. They have intel gathered by drones, satellites, and whatnot; they have the on-call support of airpower and its obscenely expensive logistical tail, the best firepower money can buy. If they get in trouble, perhaps a helo full of helpful cavalry and a flock of A10s and F-15Es with PGMs will pull them out of the fire. All against guys with rifles with iron sights, and maybe a few RPGs and machine guns... no helos, no satellites, no largest economy in the world, no F-15Es to back them up.
I call em cowards because they planned sneak attacks against civilians and usually pick on soft targets they know cannot fight back.
Maybe when LeMay firebombed nigh-defenseless Japanese cities in the spring of '45, rather than have the Marines march ashore at Yokusuka with nothing but Garands in hand, he was being a coward? He knew the Imperial air arm was kaput, and those civilians on the ground couldn't fight back against B-29s loaded with incendiaries (let along nukes).
here's what these references to i][cowards[/i] are: a distortion of the word, and insult de jour, nothing more.
quiz: were the guys who tried to sink the
USS Cole cowards?