NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > From the Right > Irelands Michael Collins. Father of the Republic and father of insurgency

From the Right by Ed Farnan

Irelands Michael Collins. Father of the Republic and father of insurgency

Posted on Monday, September 05, 2011 at 08:20 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

37 Comments

RSS

Archives

I asked James Biesterfield for his expertise in understanding the impact Michael Collins had on the world of terrorism/insurgency. Mr. Biesterfield is a retired Special Agent for Counterintelligence from the US Army. He is currently a counter-terrorism consultant, author and trainer based in Riverside County, California. James and I co-authored this piece.

St. Michael, the Archangel, is considered to be the Patron Saint of Warriors. In some circles, Michael "Mick" Collins is almost considered a saint. There are truths, falsehoods and legends that surround this iconic man. To some, he was one of the fathers of the Irish Republic – an honored hero. In the counter-terrorism field he is viewed as the father of modern day terrorist tactics. So, how should we view Collins?

By all accounts, this youngest of 8 children, was exceptionally bright and his father, also named Michael, stated that his young son would do great things for his country in the future. This pronouncement made on the deathbed of the elder Collins. He would not be wrong.

In the world of violent groups, the old adage is, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. This could not have been truer in the case of Michael Collins. From a purely analytic viewpoint, Michael Collins was absolutely critical in the advancement of modern terrorist & insurgency organizations.

In the year 1909, the 19-year-old Collins joined The Irish Brotherhood. He rose quickly in the ranks, obtaining a solid reputation and being given a great deal of responsibility with their Finance Ministry and leadership with the Irish Republican Army. Collins made some significant contributions in logistics and organization for the IRA and the Republican government. As President of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, under the bylaws of the Brotherhood, he was President of the Irish Republic. Collins was shot and killed in August 1922, during the Irish Civil War.

After the Easter Rising of April 1916, Collins was arrested after surviving the attack on the Dublin Post Office. Almost given the death penalty, he was instead sent to Frongoch Prison in Wales. He was released in a Christmas Amnesty in December 1916 and allowed to return to Ireland. While in prison, he had time to consider how IRA operations were being conducted.

For the most part, IRA fighters were loosely organized in their particular home areas and locally commanded and directed. This allowed no continuity of action between the various fighting groups. Collins played a prominent part, in re-organizing IRA fighters into what he called Flying Columns. He also centralized Logistics and Training allowing continuity among all of the Flying columns. Thus, if one guy got “too hot” in one area, he could be transferred to another area without appreciable changes in his training base.

This was incredibly innovative for the time. Previously, terrorist/insurgent groups operated independently, or in loose cooperative efforts. (Did you notice the variety of weapons among the Libyan Freedom Fighters? A logistical nightmare! A lack of training dragged that fight out for 6 months, even WITH NATO support.)

In following the timeline through the 20th Century terrorist groups, it appears that virtually ALL groups have and are following the IRA Model. The PLO used and improved upon this model in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This led to a vast number of terrorist fighters from all over the world attending training at PLO camps located in Libya during this period. Following this, we began to see cooperative efforts on the part of terrorist groups (i.e. Lod Airport, Rome Airport, Mogadishu, etc).

Even today, Islamist groups follow a similar model that allows interoperability between disparate groups throughout the world.

However one might view Michael Collins – saint or sinner – his contribution to insurgent/terrorist groups cannot be discounted. The important thing for law enforcement, special operations and intelligence organizations is to understand that impact, its relationship to groups in present day and begin to analyze future changes to the logistical and training capabilities on the part of such groups.

Mr. Biesterfield can be reached: On Twitter @xspook2 as well as Face book and Linkedin.

For other points of view visit Carroll Standard: www.carrollstandard.com

E-mail

37 comments

Next Page 1 of 3 pages

Monsoonman | Sep 15, 2011, 12:14 PM EDT

How many members of the UK "voluntarily joined"?

Report abuse

ancavker | Sep 12, 2011, 10:18 AM EDT

Dan: The fact that Irish MP's sat in the British Parliament does not change the fact that Ireland was a conquered nation. forced into the UK; they did not join on their own accord. And how long did it take them to finally get representation, as far as the Catholic majority. And yes they did hold the balance of power at times, but they were never large enough to get Home Rule passed, even in the very limited form that the British government was prepared to offer. What Collins and Griffith negotiated was real independence for the country and not a talk shop like Home Rule would have been. As far as Germany gaining hegemony over all of mainland Europe, ironic in that that is exactly what is happening now. England was concerned that Germany was becoming too strong both militarily and economically, and would ultimately threaten their empire. It was a horrendous blood bath on all sides, and a complete waste, as it solved nothing and created more problems as witnessed later. As far as the U.s they got into the war because Wilson was an Anglophile

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Sep 10, 2011, 01:39 PM EDT

Anc – Ireland was most certainly part of the UK, Irish MPs sitting at Westminster, and at times keeping the Liberals in power. Irish over 65s received pensions awarded by the 1909 Liberal Government, just as the rest of the UK. The main reason Britain went to war was to stop Germany gaining hegemony over all of mainland Europe by defeating France. They went to war reluctantly, just look how small pre-war British Army was – Britain had not set foot on mainland Europe for a century, happy to leave the French and Germans in an uneasy balance of power….if all countries were equally to blame…why would the isolationist US take sides?

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Sep 09, 2011, 07:36 PM EDT

Anc – Ireland was most certainly part of the UK, Irish MPs sitting at Westminster, and at times keeping the Liberals in power. Irish over 65s received pensions awarded by the 1909 Liberal Government, as did all such in the then UK. The main reason Britain went to war was to stop Germany gaining hegemony over all of mainland Europe by defeating France. They went to war reluctantly, witness the size of the very small pre-war British Army – Britain had not set foot on mainland Europe for a century, happy to leave the French and Germans in an uneasy balance of power….it may be easy to say all countries were equally to blame, but the facts don’t support that revisionist view…why would the isolationist US take sides if that was the case?

Report abuse

ancavker | Sep 09, 2011, 03:09 PM EDT

Sirpeter: Collins thinking at the time and in his own words (To wards a new Ireland) he was not afraid of renewed war with the British if that was what the Irish people wanted. The Irish people were tired of war, Collins men were exhausted, and running out of arms. His plan was the stepping stone, th freedom to achieve freedom and he fully intended to dismantle those parts of the treaty that were objectionable. I think you would agree however that had he known the boundary commission was a sham he would not in the end have accepted the treaty, even if meant ultimate defeat and re-imposition of British rule in the entire Ireland.

Report abuse

ancavker | Sep 09, 2011, 03:04 PM EDT

Dan We can debate this back and forth, to say that Ireland was a constituent part of the UK was a stretch to say the least, and to state that somehow they were and should be responsible for it is ridiculous. And it built up through the centuries?? For what to pay for the country's development? But I will not belabor the point and leave ti there. As far as Britain not being responsible for WWI well now come on they were all responsible, to make the loser pay, well we all know how that turned out. Ironically one of the reasons that Britain went to war against Germany was German plans to create a common economic union on the continent. Ironically, look at where we Europe is today, and at who is being asked to bail the rest of the deadbeat Europeans out of their mess; the German taxpayers. Oh as far as Sudan well one side has the oil, and the other side has the refining capabilities, it works out for both.

Report abuse

sirpeter | Sep 09, 2011, 01:00 PM EDT

@ancavker.I can't say you are wrong because I don't know what Collins was thinking at the time.Maybe you know something or have read something i didn't.I'm inclined to agree with Dano that they did their best.I do know Michael Collins' view that the Treaty was a tactical move, or "stepping stone", rather than a final settlement.If the treaty wasn't passed then I believe the British would have come in with much more force.Who knows.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Sep 09, 2011, 12:15 PM EDT

ancavker - The debt was incurred by the then United Kingdom, not just England…it was, and is, standard practice to divide such debt between constituent parts of a country where separation takes place, the most recent example being Sudan, and this was agreed in the Treaty. The debt was built up over centuries, although it increased massively by the Great War. As to paying for a war you didn’t start, that was also the UK position, as they did not accept that they had started the war either…..hence the unwise decision to seek reparations from Germany. Not sure how you know at this stage what was in the mind of the Brits or Michael Collins; Lloyd George as a liberal had quite a different, and more sympathetic view of Home Rule, than conservatives, but his government was a coalition, with all the comprising that coalitions entail. As to partition, it has been and will be debated endlessly, who duped who etc. and it remains either a pragmatic ‘least worse’ temporary solution, or a shabby sellout…none of us had to make that life and death decision, and maybe we should respect the motives of all those involved as doing the best as they saw it for the people they represented?

Report abuse

ancavker | Sep 09, 2011, 10:56 AM EDT

sirpeter: No the border was established between the 2 entities 26 and 6. Keep in mind the 6 county entity was up and running at that point. The Free State side honestly believed that once things had settled down that the boundary commission would ultimately award large parts of the 6 counties to the new Free State. Lloyd George was under no such illusions. Collins in my opinion would not have signed the treaty has he not truly believed this,and would not have abandoned the Catholics/Nationalist population to the fascist Unionist regime that was established. He did not really care about the oath and the crown, and was quite amused at how the English would get their knickers in a bunch over this. He planned to ignore those aspects of the treaty once in place and break other parts that were not beneficial to Ireland. His mindset was the English broke every treaty with the Irish down through the years, we will do the same.

Report abuse

sirpeter | Sep 08, 2011, 06:19 PM EDT

@jerrydonovan Don't mind Creakygate he's full of crap.He's nearly worse then Georgy Boy at this stage.

Report abuse

sirpeter | Sep 08, 2011, 06:15 PM EDT

@ancavker The impression I have was that the boundary was deliberately kept very vague in the treaty in order to bring some moderate anti-treaty guys on board and to get the treaty passed.One of the arguments was that by the time they took the Catholics parts the rest would not be viable.As much as I'd like to say that the Brits tried to pull a fast one (which I might add they are capable of)Collins knew what they got in the treaty was as much as they were going to get for the time being.They did get the Brits out of the ports just before WW2.That was a bit of luck i think.It kept Ireland neutral.

Report abuse

ancavker | Sep 08, 2011, 02:39 PM EDT

sirpeter: I give no credit to Lloyd George, in fact I despise him. He had no intention of adjusting the border as established when Northern Ireland came into being. He tricked Collins and the rest of them, but then no one should really be surprised; the British through out their history are noted for that.

Report abuse

ancavker | Sep 08, 2011, 02:36 PM EDT

Dan: Ah no it is not. What happened after it was commenced, is quite different than from how it was presented during treaty negotiations. It was presented as the wishes of the inhabitants, and geographic considerations. However, in the minds of the British the border was basically not going to be altered unless geographically it made sense for the benefit of the now established Northern Ireland or six counties, hence the inclusion of east Done gal into the north, with the minor transfer of some border area in Fermanagh and south Armagh to the Free State. The Unionists never appointed any one because it was of no co sequence to them. Cosgrave sold out the nationalist people in Fermanagh Tyrone Etc, not for debt relief as you call it, but rather for Ireland s's share of the debt relating to England's expenses incurred in WWI. A little ironic don't you think, to be charged for a war you did not start? Anyhow had Collins lived he would have been seen that he was duped,a nd would I believe have challenged the British fiercely on the boundary commission, and he would have gotten rid of the debt as you call it as well.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Sep 08, 2011, 02:00 PM EDT

The history of the boundary commission and its report is a bit more complex than claimed here. The work of reviewing the border was delayed by the Civil War, and also by the NI refusal to appoint its representative. The Brits appointed a rep anyway, to act for NI. When a leaked copy of the report was published, indicating parts of East Donegal could be awarded to the North, all parties agreed to bury both the report and the commission, and the Free State got debt relief.

Report abuse

jerrydonovan | Sep 08, 2011, 10:08 AM EDT

Towngate,shooting at people from INSIDE tanks would hardly be described as "man to man".Croke park would not be described as"man to man".Collins was not only a great guerrilla leader,he was also a great visionary.Fact is, it is his blueprint which is basically being implemented in the north to-day.

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 3 pages

Tweets by @EDinCali