Basically you trade off being more effective for being more robust. When any member can be arrested at any time it makes sense to retain only loose organization even though you won't get as much done.
Recently I've been reading about Vancouver's gang wars and it strikes me just how persistent Hells Angels seem to be compared to other groups that have all but disappeared off the radar or become friendly to Hells Angels.
Perhaps decentralization is the new organized crime paradigm...we won't be seeing supercartels like Cali anymore
(Interesting side note, gay leatherman culture grew out of specific gay biker gangs, and mainstream biker groups like Hell's Angels have a positive view of leather culture despite their macho image.)
Based on what I've read, in any country demobilized soldiers are a challenge; they are trained in violence, and are often traumatized, have trouble fitting in with civilians, and lack valuable civilian skills. In some places they become violent insurgents (a recent example is Iraq), in some the government finds a war for them (I've read that that was a motivation for the Crusades), and in the U.S. post-WWII it appears that some became biker gangs, a sort of vigilante for a peaceful society.
I've read it many times about many countries, current and historical. Find resources serious and detailed enough to deal with that kind of policy issue. There is abundant discussion in the U.S. press (e.g., the NY Times) of the demobilization of the Iraqi army after the Iraq War.
> or about the possible motivation for the crusades
Sorry, not off the top of my head, but it's a relatively well-known theory and I read it more than once. As I wrote, I've read that theory; I didn't say such things happened. That's because I don't recall whether the source was based on serious research and expertise or was repeating a semi-popular 'wisdom'.