Build the right car for the journey

The only way to get where you want to go

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.

First, everything you've written is accurate. I think it's important to note that no group, no organization, is inherently "strong" or "weak" based purely on their organizational structure. For example, we can't say Walmart is "strong" because it's big. Same goes for the US Army/US Department of Defense. That bigness carries with it certain benefits and certain costs (i.e., the bigger you are the bigger a target you can be). 

I think you've got to look at context, aims, and timeline. Every organization has a certain worldview. They may not state it explicitly, but it's basically the way they see the world. They see themselves as existing inside a context: sort of like the story they tell about the way they think they fit into the world. They have aims: things they want to achieve in that world/context. And they also have a timeline: how long they believe it will take them to get where they're going. 

I'd never claim to be an expert on Hezbollah, or any number of American far-right groups. But I think it's fair to say that the way they assess context, aims, and timeline would/should heavily shape their choice of a more centralized versus more decentralized organization. 

Put another way, they've got to build the right car (i.e., organizational structure) that gets them to the destination of their choice (i.e., based on context/aims/timeline).