Question for Jambo...

Jambo wrote:

"I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable. "

Question: When is "terror" terrorism, and when is "total war" an acceptable part of grand strategy?

Michael Collins is seen (almost entirely) as either a national hero/patriot or as a war criminal/terrorist. His stated defense for his actions during the guerrilla campaign was that he was waging "total war"... and he employed terror techniques to accomplish his goals, but the terror itself was never his goal.

This is a case were we can see both the before and after of the situation. Prior to 1917, Ireland had no legitimate representation within the British government. Both Scotland and Wales today have a greater degree of self-determination within the United Kingdom than all of Ireland did prior to the Easter Rising. Because of the efforts of men like Collins, there now exists an independent, democratic republic where none existed before, and millions of people are free to exercise their rights and liberties as they see fit through a model, modern representative system of government.

Does the Irish Republic exist today because of the efforts and actions of Collins (and those like him) between 1916 and 1922, or does it exist in spite of those efforts and actions?

The definition of "grand strategy" is: "...purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community...", and Collins was the man in charge of the "security community" during the years in question. He certainly didn't deny the responsibility and consequences of his actions and decision... so no question remains as to who is responsible for what was done under the authority of the Provisional Irish Republican government. His stated intentions were to cripple the ability of the British government to administer and govern effectively... and he succeeded.

I guess my question is this: My grandfather fought with and received honors and medals from the French government for his efforts to support the French resistance movement during the last years of WWII. These men and women fought a guerrilla war that included acts of sabotage, assassinations, bombings of trains... and civilian deaths, while unfortunate, were seen as an acceptable risk by both the French and the Allies in general. Were the efforts of the French resistance better or worse than the efforts of the IRA and the Republicans between 1916 and 1922? Can one be "legitimate" and the other not?