Use of the term "Cowardly Act" in regards to violence

Question

I've noticed a trend for American leaders to use the word "cowardly" to describe acts of violence:

• Obama: Navy Yard Shootings “Cowardly Act” - in reference to the Sep 2013 DC Navy Yard shooting
• "Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts" - George W Bush, Sep 12, 2001; referring to the 9/11 terrorist attaches
• "It’s such a cowardly act — whoever did this." - Tagg Romney, Apr 16, 2013; referring to the Boston Marathon Bombings

I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, is meant in this context. Let me make it clear that there is no doubt in my mind that the events referenced above are all horrendous and abhorrent. I'm just trying to figure out if describing them as "cowardly" is appropriate.

Cowardly (According Merriam Webster):

afraid in a way that makes you unable to do what is right or expected : lacking courage

The part that jumps out at me is "lacking courage":

Courage:

the ability to do something that frightens one.

Are we to agree that the perpetrators of the events lacked courage? It seems to me that they did not lack courage because each of the acts involved something that is likely to frighten the perpetrator (and therefore cannot be called cowardly).

Am I missing the real meaning of the phrase, or perhaps, just thinking about it too much? I'll admit that my initial interpretation is that it has something to do with being "unmanly" in that it could be perceived that the perpetrators didn't face their "enemies" straight on. But it still doesn't seem correct.

Answer 1

Ah, but you are to agree that the perpetrators lacked courage, or at least that is what the person making the statement intends when they make it.

They are framing some uses of force (whether one calls a given use force violence or not is a similarly politicised matter) as cowardly while others (generally those that they would themselves sanction, such as military operations they support) as not cowardly, or indeed brave.

Linguistically, it is a valid use of the normal sense of the word cowardly. Whether one agrees with the statement is another matter.

You're not far off in your idea of what is deemed "unmanly", particularly in those cases dealing with assymetric warfare, where one side may portray their enemy as cowardly because they plant bombs and flee rather than engage in open combat and the other side may just as well portray their enemy as cowardly because they are better armed and have air superiority which they may use rather than engage in open combat.

Answer 2

I think the phrase cowardly act is idiomatic.

When this phrase is invoked, it is intended to cast the mismatch between the combat status of the attacker and the targets as dishonorable. In each of the examples cited in the question, though the perpetrator may eventually be apprehended by combatants, the majority of the targets are civilians.

Note that this is different than notions of asymmetric warfare, in which unconventional methods or mismatched conventional methods are employed by combatants chiefly to target other combatants. Examples here might include a small-boat swarm attack targeting a guided-missile destroyer, or a hundred-dollar rocket propelled grenade fired at a multi-million dollar attack helicopter.

This term has be employed previously. Please note the following examples, my emphasis added.

Clinton Administration - White House Press Briefing (1997):

The President is outraged and saddened by this morning's incident in Hebron, when an off-duty Israeli soldier fired into a crowd of civilians. The President has called Chairman Arafat to express his condolences to him and to the families of the victims. The President condemns this cowardly act, which was clearly designed to make it more difficult to conclude an agreement on Israeli deployment from Hebron.

President Reagan - On the Bombing of the United States Embassy in Beirut (1983):

Let me begin with a brief statement. As you know, our Embassy in Beirut was the target this morning of a vicious, terrorist bombing. This cowardly act has claimed a number of killed and wounded. It appears that there are some American casualties, but we don't know yet the exact number or the extent of injury.

President Carter - On the Death of the Former Italian Prime Minister (1978):

My sympathies and the sympathies of all Americans go out to Aldo Moro's bereaved family and nation.

His murder is a contemptible and cowardly act. His death advances no cause but that of mindless anarchy. But his life was devoted to building his nation, and his political skills were forever at the service of justice.

In short, these acts are dishonorable because of the the mismatch of the combat status of the attacker and the target, rather than the methods employed.

Answer 3

The only way that "cowardly" can rightly apply is if we consider the murderers had other ways to forward their cause (e.g. politics). Instead of conducting a peaceful revolution, they 'take the easy path', which is 'cowardly'.

---

But, this is not the only way of understanding the shaping of perception in the public sphere:

This is also media spin for constructing popular opinion. Rightly, I'd add, though I agree that in that regard it's not technically correct to use this word.

Taking a weapon and killing people is in one way not an act of cowering: the murderer (in these cases) will clearly be apprehended and their life will be over (through prison or death sentence). There is a strength (non-cowardice) required to more-or-less end your own life (literally or practically).

The public interest is served by not framing this as any-form-of brave. That would provide praise to the murderer(s). It would probably encouage others.

---

I have a personal hunch that the usage around 2001, when media needed a way to condemn suicide bombers for attacks on the WTC. Many suicide 'missions' are performed out of a concept of 'honor'. Publicly-labeling these people as cowards is (perhaps?) the strongest response to in swaying the opinions of those that would 'try next.' This being a more effective response than to use any term that would convey power - even that the murderer(s) had the power to be brutal and savage.

Answer 4

Lets imagine for a moment that Dwight is a 6'3" foot tall world class karate black belt. Jim, on the other hand, is only 5 feet tall, and he weighs about 100 lbs. (45kg.)

Jim hates Dwight. Jim hates Dwight with such passion that he will do anything to ruin Dwight's life, but Jim is also afraid of Dwight. Instead of walking up to Dwight and addressing the issue, Jim blows up Dwight's car.

The story demonstrates the meaning behind the proclamation of a "cowardly act." The assertion is that if the perpetrator had been brave or manly, he would have chosen to directly confront the target of his feelings in a "fair fight." Terrorism by its nature is cowardly, in that it targets the weak, the innocent, and the civilian. Terrorism is by its nature a "sucker punch," delivered without warning upon people with no means to defend themselves.

I think it would be illustrative to compare and contrast between a kamikaze pilot from World War 2, and a suicide bomber from 2013.

Answer 5

Anyone who cared about language would draw a distinction betwen your examples; planting a timebomb is cowardly, since it involves no personal risk and does not involve standing up publicly for your cause as a soldier does. Suicide bombers like the 9/11 terrorists are plainly not cowardly in this sense; nor is a man who starts shooting (for whatever reason) and continues until he is shot dead. But it may be unwise to say this too loudly; the world is full of people who think "This action was not cowardly" means "This action was not so bad" if not "I support this action". Often, and particularly in political speeches, cowardly means vile or something I disagree with.

Answer 6

The politicians are definitely using the word "cowardly" wrong.

Cowardice means you were in a group in which all the members agreed to divide some risks among the members so that all could share in a gain, but a coward choses to excuse himself from his share of risk, without notice, in violation of the agreement, when the danger confronts him.

For example, a soldier turns and runs from a battle that could have been won if only he had not done so. All the soldiers in the platoon had an understood agreement that they would all fight, until victory, a call for retreat, or they are clearly overrun. The other soldiers correctly consider the one who deserts in the middle of a winnable battle a "coward".

A mass shooting by a mentally unstable man does not fit in any way into the context of "cowardice". The politicians are quite stupid and wrong to describe it this way.

The best we can say for the politicians is that they "hate cowardice", and they hate the mass shooting too, therefore they think the mass shooting must have been a "cowardice" because it is a thing they hate.

It is a logical error called "denying the consequent". It means the politicians are also making this logical error CONSTANTLY when they make more mundane decisions that are less dramatic about law & policy, thus hurting you & me. But we only see them do it publicly when a disaster like this happens, and they are pressured to speak immediately.

Answer 7

The consensus seems to be that "cowardly" is used as victims of terrorist attacks may not return fire. Thus eligible attack is only against equally equipped opponent. It seems that politicians accuse the terrorists of not adhering to medieval theoretical chivalric code. Unfortunately if this was the case, then:

• snipers
• drone operators
• any air attack on a target without appropriate AA defence
• pilots of F22 Raptor
• submariners
• pilots using air-to-surface missiles (not many countries are able to shoot down missiles). are all cowards. Of course it is not the case.

Using the word coward is in fact purely political. It also sells well in media. Moreover this also contains the message "this is not the pattern one should reproduce". They can't use the word "dishonest" as this is no longer shocking (even in the Bible David killed Goliath, also Judith cut off the head of the Holophernes at night). In fact in military terms being "honest" is an anomaly.

Personally i think that if the word "barbaric" or "uncivilized" would be better. Using "cowardly" is just best from the political point of view, as this feature of character is disdained by almost everyone.

Answer 8

IMO This phrase has distorted the meaning of cowardice, as a coward is someone who runs from a fight. These "cowardly acts" are better termed "contemptible acts" - which implies the act was dishonorable and disgraceful which has the impact the phrase should have. Taking advantage of an opportunity to attack, and run away, implies they are first brave; but the act itself, the killing of innocents was done by someone brave enough to complete the act, so in that moment they were brave, not cowardly. How they behave afterward, whether committing suicide, which is also brave, to take ones life is difficult, regardless of rewards in heaven; or to escape, so they can kill another day, is tactical and/or strategic. In cases where they have killed civilians, it is more from a lack of regard for human life, or for a specific type of human life, and terming everyone of a certain belief as part of a group that should be annihilated. There is no dishonor to them to end those lives, and takes bravery to pull a trigger, with no thought to your own safety. They, IMO, are not cowards, but murderers... The use of "dishonorable" acts is helpful, rather than the term "cowardly", as calling someone a coward, is usually followed by calling someone out, to fight face to face, or just fight -- encouraging more acts.. there is little strategy in calling out murderers to do more.

Answer 9

I believe the use of the word cowardly when used to describe terrorist acts is because they are attacking unarmed civilians. It takes much less courage to engage in a firefight with people who don't have guns than with people who do.

So politicians like to use cowardly because it...

• (As others have said) Servers public interest

• Exploits to way to attack was carried out to (on unarmed civilians) to degrade the action

Answer 10

It is legitimate to use the word coward on someone who inflicts violence on others who are not equally armed or not able to defend themselves: for instance, mowing down victims who are not able to return fire.

Sometimes such perpetrators in fact "die yellow" when they are later sentenced and executed: they struggle and faint on the way to the execution, which confirms that they are not able to face death, in spite of having killed others.

But other kinds of murderers do not fit the definition; at the height of their rampage they are able to act while staring death in the face and even perish.

It is not correct to indiscriminately use coward as a synonym for "heinous murderer". On the other hand, words like brave or courageous do not apply either, because they have positive connotations. Someone described by a speaker as "brave" is not only steadfast and calm in the face of danger, but has an ideology that the speaker identifies with in some way (if not agrees with outright). Cowardly is not an opposite of brave that can be used to express disagreement with someone's ideology; it only expresses the inability to act due to fear, regardless of morality or ideology.

There are words which are like bravery but which express some degree of the speaker's disagreement with the morals, ideology or manners of the subject, words such as: impudence, gall, nerve, audacity, brazenness, insolence or effrontery.

Sometimes heinous perpetrators have such qualities, and sometimes they are cowards.