Cowardice, yes — Stupidity no
As an addendum to my previous Ode to Surrender, I'd like to dispel misconceptions about the proper role of Cowardice. Says an English proverb, "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day". However, he who is a clever coward runs away well ahead of any bloodshed. The clever coward won't wait for things to get nasty; he won't go to war only to surrender; he won't uselessly waste resources at preparing losing battles; he won't even engage the superior enemy; and even the inferior enemies, he'll find someone else to handle.
Of course, time and again, fighting might be an absolute necessity. There are times when running away is not an option, when surrendering will result neither in your life being spared, nor in the well-being of those you love being preserved. There are enemies who have the murderous intent to take away your life rather than merely the thievish desire to take away your belongings.
But if you're clever enough in your cowardice, you'll avoid those times. You'll stay out of reach of such deadly enemies. You'll accept the dominion of a stronger but less parasitic enemy that you can pit against a more parasitic but weaker enemy. In the last extremity, but way in advance of the actual conflagration, you'll prepare for the actual fight, in such a way that you can win — and since no retreat is possible (or else it wouldn't be the last extremity), you'll then use the leverage of commitment to increase the power of your strike. In other words, you'll carefully pick your battles so you can win them all.
My great grandfather was a war hero: he succeeded at getting killed "for his country" at a war in which he hadn't been forced to partake — for no benefit whatsoever to his country and to the great detriment of his family. His son my grandfather on the other hand is a failed hero: he twice took the initiative to cross great distances to join the battlefield and fight "for his country", and twice failed to arrive on time to be part of any battle. His son my father was an unsuccessful anti-hero: he didn't avoid being drafted in a war he didn't call for, and got poisoned with amibiasis for his service (ah, if only he were like his mates a drinker of beer, not water). But he was clever enough to fight where he ran the least risks: amongst paratroopers. And happily the heroes in the shock troupers to which he was detached were kind enough to leave him behind when they ultimately rushed to their heroic failure. As for me, I hope to be a successful coward: one who manages to stay way clear of any combat zone.
Of course, I'm willing to fund those who will fight battles for me. Considering that warring is an activity that requires specialized skills, it is much more efficient indeed to pay a professional than to partake myself as an amateur. But I'll contribute, in money or in kind, only to those battles that I think are worth fighting, and only if I believe my marginal funding can actually contribute to victory. What more, I strongly believe that corruption not force, dishonesty towards the unjust laws not honor in enforcing their supremacy, are what will eventually make peace prevail. It is tautological that justice, peace and prosperity can't win against the interest of the mighty — but they can probably win more easily by making the mighty interested in justice, peace and prosperity than by trying to rise those interested in justice, peace and prosperity against the mighty.