I recently had a really good back-and-forth with a reader, worth a look by the wider audience.

Reader Question:

By the way, I had a quick strategic question for you. One of my areas/topics of acute interest is the study of militant, non-state actor groups and their strategies. Many militant, non-state actors I've studied have achieved their goals through a very hierarchical, centralized command structure (the group I've studied the most is Hezbollah, which is a good example of the aforementioned description). Yet, while studying the American far-right, especially the white power movement, I've come across the first movement I've seen in my research that employs the opposite tactic, what they call "leaderless resistance, A.K.A. very decentralized, even nonexistent central leadership (except for guidance on the broad strokes of the movement). I understand that decentralization reduces reliance on a "vanguard" and reduces vulnerability to leadership decapitation strategies by the opposition.

Additionally, it makes it harder to thoroughly infiltrate and disband the organization. However, it's my impression from studying other movements/groups that a strong, central leadership/decision-making system is ultimately necessary for achievement of goals. If so, then the American white power movement should be set up for disappointment. Is this a correct assessment? I understand Al-Qaeda has become very decentralized with relation to its affiliate groups, too, so your insight would help me understand some important movements/groups.

***

Response:

You've just opened something of a can of weapons-grade worms, but I'll try to provide some thoughts on what you've raised.