Michael Collins is an icon in Irish history. A leader in the Irish war of independence (1919-21), he outwitted the British empire and negotiated a peace treaty that granted a degree of independence that would have been unthinkable even a few years before. As director of intelligence of the IRA, he honed the tactics of fast-moving guerilla warfare, and also established a sophisticated network of spies that proved more effective than their British counterparts. More controversially, he initiated a series of targeted assassinations against perceived British spies and intelligence agents, civilians as well as military. The IRA also frequently ambushed and killed British police (in fact, a highly militarized police force). These actions provoked an ever-stronger British “surge”, which in turn only added fuel to the cycle of violence.
The end of the story is well known. Collins, always pragmatic, was instrumental in negotiating a treaty with Britain. But because it did not grant a full republic, a group led by de Valera opposed the treaty, and the country descended into a bloody civil war. Ultimately, the pro-treaty faction (the “free staters”) proved victorious, but not before the ambush and murder of Michael Collins.
A romantic story, surely. An honorable, charismatic leader who died young leads us to, quite naturally, ask “what if?”, especially in light of decades of poor political leadership following independence. Even some Catholic bloggers extol the virtues of Collins as a “manly man”. But let’s set aside the myths. I am not at all convinced the the Irish war of independence was a just war. It certainly was not a last resort. And we cannot ignore the fact that the terror tactors and targeted assassinations fine-tuned by Collins were immoral. We must also not forget that the inspiration behind the war of independence was the psuedo-religion of nationalism that germinated in 19th century Europe, inspirsing much condemnation from the Church.
For those that continue to turn a blind eye to Collins’s tactics, I would ask them to consider the following thought experiment. Imagine a group of Sunni insurgents in Iraq, not connected to Al Qaeda. Imagine that what inspires them is an Arab nationalism that, first and foremost, yearns to end the American occupation. It is well aware that other groups are more supportive of this occupation, but it feels that Iraqi sovereignty must come first, before domestic political issues are resolved. This group does not consider itself a terrorist group, but a genuine liberation movement. In furtherance of that goal, it ambushes American military patrols whenever it can, and sets deadly IED bombs as convoys approach. Furthermore, it has infiltrated the “green zone” and is engaged in a sequence of “targeted assassinations” against certain key American officials. It does not target Iraqi civilians.
These tactics are the same tactics employed by Michael Collins and the IRA. If they were appropriate in Ireland, 1920, why not in Iraq, 2007?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In