Just a thought: during our own War of Independence, the British troops called the Americans cowards because they would not stand in rank and file, according to the prevailing tactics of the day. Instead, the Americans fought "asymetrically", ambushing, targeting the British officers, attacking supply lines. Here in Iraq, we are faced with an enemy who also fights "asymetrically". Calling the enemy "cowards" didn't win the war for the British, nor will it win the war in Iraq. IEDs are a deadly, effective way to kill American troops. Calling the insurgents "cowards" only displays the frustration on our part and signals our weakness at neutralizing this tactic. Better that we just admit that they are "clever" and get on with the task of killing them all.
We did fight differently, but we also fought in ranks. You may recall that Roger's Rangers fought for the British in the French and Indian war, and they certainly didn't fight in ranks.
There were British officers who fought assymetrically. Notable were Tarleton, who was famous for not granting quarter, or respecting surrender.
The British army was very interested in the use of rifles by the Colonials. They considered the lower rate of fire to more than compensate for the higher accuracy. They had Grenadier companies in each battalion, as well as light infantry companies. They would often group together these flank companies as skirmishers.
In the Massachusetts battles after Lexington and Concord, these flank companies provided screen and security for the line companies marching back to Boston after accomplishing their mission. The American militia was often shot in the back by the flank company security elements as they tried to get close enough to take a shot at the line companies marching up the road. The Americans in those battles lost many more than the British.
American tactics were actually very similar to the British, with most American Generals having received British army training, At least until Valley Forge. Only after that did Baron von Steuben develop his distinctively American drill regulations.
The British used the command "Ready! Present! Fire!" and the soldiers would close their eyes or avert their faces to protect them from the powder flash.
Baron von Steuben's drill changed that to "Ready! Aim! Fire!"
The Battle of Oriskany during the crucial year of 1777 was fought with both sides taking cover behind trees. St. Leger's force had quite a few Indians.
The southern campaign of Cornwallis was in response to successful American operations that used normal siegecraft to include digging three parallel saps to approach under cover to where the walls of the fort could be breached. That ruined the usefulness of one fort after another in the same methods as the British would have used.
A British line company was like a machinegun with a crew of 77 men that could convert to a sudden assault with spears. One could not stand up to it, but one could delay, screen, or defend from cover. Both sides used cover when the opponent was superior. Both sides used elite units (Morgan's riflemen, for the US, the flank companies of the light and grenadier companies, or the indian allies for the British.
It was a successful revolution. We were truly one nation before the Revolution, and the similarity of the two Armies tactics in battle after battle showed that.
The difference is that calling a Muslim a coward cuts to the heart of his manhood, and make them insane.
The Minutemen knew they had to abide by such tactics until such a time when they could match The British in the field with equal forces.
Al Queda will never have the numbers to do so because when they'd rather blow themselves up than fight.
The whole asymetrical war concept has a serious flaw, it supposes that suicide bombings and IEDs will be enough to cause us to lose. When we "lose" Al Queda believes that they will be allowed to take over when we leave.
That won't ever happen.
"After the terrorists were defeated in battles in Fallujah and Tal Afar, they saw they could not confront Iraqi or American forces in pitched battles and survive, and so they turned to IEDs, a weapon that allows them to attack from a safe distance without having to face our forces in battle," Bush said during a speech at George Washington University's Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
I can't believe I'm reading this, and I can't believe he managed to keep a straight face while he said this. I guess I missed all that news about terrorists waging war with aircraft carriers, Predator drones, guided missiles, Stealth aircraft, cluster bombs, depleted-uranium munitions, night-vision capability, etc.
Good heavens -- this is the height of either idiocy or hypocrisy.
I disagree - despicable, craven cowards is a far too kind and generous an epithet for those who kidnap civilians torture and murder their prisoners, and otherwise violate the bounds of humanity.
Uhm... Calling a muslim a coward IS a strategic move.
They generally cannot STAND being called cowards (even though they are) so they stand up and fight (and are slaughtered).
From the documents I've seen, US fighting forces have been quite successful in defeating muslim fighters by telling them (via loudspeaker) that they were worthless cowards. Brings them out spraying and praying every time.
The C-in-C is just doing a larger version of the loudspeaker thing.
Are you in Iraq?