I have a lot of respect for Michael Howard, who has long been one of the
world's most authoritative military historians and experts in strategy.
However, I think this piece is actually rather unhelpful. First of all, it is
staggeringly literal in its construction of the rhetoric being used. He is
interpreting words such as "cowardly" and "war" in their absolute most
literal senses, as if parsing a piece of text in a literature or philosophy
seminar. Surely he understands that people, especially when speaking
extemporaneously or writing journalistically, are not as careful or precise
in their language as they are when writing an academic paper (which is
usually revised a multitude of times before being presented or published).
Also, it is all well and good to say, "Don't do this" or "don't do that",
"ooh, be careful", "oh, i don't like that," "let's not be beastly to the
murderers," etc. And he's right, we do have to be careful not to punish the
innocent along with the guilty. But it would be a lot more helpful if, along
with the don'ts, he recommended a few dos as well. It's not like he doesn't
have a lifetime of expertise in the area.
It's very irritating, when we are suffering like this, to hear everyone
outside say, "Do something - but do don't do the wrong something - we're not
going to tell you in advance what the right something is - but when you do
something wrong we'll be sure to tell you after the fact." It's easy to give
advice when you don't have the responsibility to do anything. It's as if
everyone is assuming in advance that we're going to overreact, misuse our
power, screw up in a way that will let them say in self-satisfaction "Oh, I
told you so."
Tom Beck
