The Physics of Geopolitics

(Note: "The Quantum Physics Behind the Death of Osama bin Laden" was featured at Forbes.com on May 5, 2011.)

The death of Osama bin Laden, while a geostrategic event of real importance, is also a prime example of how three principles drawn from quantum physics can explain both the reality and the potential of any such occurrence in the realm of international affairs.

The first principle is that this incident – or, more precisely, the news of this incident – is comprised of nothing more than energy and information, the same two fundamental building blocks from which everything in the universe is formed.  The second principle is that the mere fact of its observation will influence how it ultimately takes shape.  The third principle involves the concept of nonlocality, that an event occurring in one physical space has the potential to profoundly alter events that unfold elsewhere.  The combination of these three principles offers a framework for eliciting more meaningful and enduring insights into the import of this event.

With respect to the first principle, we have, on the surface, the following information: bin Laden was killed during a unilateral raid by U.S. Special Forces at a secure residence located well inside Pakistan.  What attracts greater attention (an important aspect when we get to the second principle) are the additional details that he was the leader of al Qaeda, the organization behind the attacks of 9/11 and the figurehead for a movement to restore the Caliphate in the Middle East.  What brings this information into play is the emotional energy attached to it – from the euphoric celebrations in front of the White House to the angry reactions within Pakistan.  The combination of this energy and information proved sufficient to temporarily move the major stock exchanges, shift antiterrorist programs into high gear, and cause heated debate within American political circles as to who should rightfully take credit for the killing.

This leads to the second principle, where the mere fact of human observation will change the nature of the event.  In America (and, perhaps, the west), the death of bin Laden will be heralded as a major success in the war on terror and further evidence of the efficacy of the intelligence-drives-kinetic-energy approach to counterterrorism.  Such a perspective may even seek to reframe this event as a culminating point of victory in the battle against Islamic extremism (the “cut off the head of the snake and it will die” philosophy).

In contrast, human observation in the Middle East (and, perhaps, Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa), frame this in a far different light.  From this perspective, the killing of bin Laden is simply additional evidence of America’s systematic disregard for the sovereign rights of nations with Muslim majorities and his death – at the hands of the crusaders no less – has turned a man surrounded by myth into a truly mythical icon for the ages.

Finally, there is the nonlocal element.  One hundred years ago, the death of bin Laden would have been, at best, a regional story; with modern technology, housewives in Jakarta have almost as much visibility on the event as do the analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center and are, potentially, almost as directly impacted.  The rate and volume of information flow surrounding an event of this nature has the potential to drive national policy and to change vacation plans in equal measure.  The concern in this regard is that technology continues to evolve far more quickly than the ability of the human brain to make sense of a flood of data.  Hence, the rationale for an Indonesian housewife to change her family’s plans for a holiday are as about as valid is that used to alter a nation’s approach to counterterrorism.

The process of drawing a unified field theory on international relations that combines the influence of these three principle requires the same mental construct Einstein cited as vital to his breakthrough thinking about the nature of the universe at high speeds: imagination.  Imagine, then, the possible ramifications of the death of bin Laden on the geostrategic landscape.

     • With the loss of the heroic figure in the organization’s central narrative, entropy descends upon al Qaeda and it fairly quickly perishes amid competing agendas and personality conflicts.

     • The Taliban can no longer be held responsible for protecting the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks; as a result, the U.S. leverages this as an opportunity to reduce and ultimately withdraw its presence from Afghanistan.

     • Given that bin Laden’s presence at a large, fortified compound within Pakistan could hardly escape notice by Pakistan’s intelligence and security service (the ISI), the Pakistani leadership moves to finally clean house in, and take control of, the far-reaching ISI apparatus.

     • The above scenario proves unsuccessful for the Pakistani leadership; instead, the ISI moves to clean house in Islamabad and takes real or virtual control of government affairs.

     • In the end, al Qaeda continues is effort to appear relevant, U.S. counterterrorism policies and its presence in Afghanistan remain unchanged (with victory of some order declared in both arenas); Pakistan remains badly divided by the schizophrenic pursuit of its own interests while trying not to trod too heavily on the interests of its alleged allies, resulting in a continuation of the muddling policies of a nuclear-capable nation; and the argument over which party is tougher on terrorism will be a critical point of debate in the next U.S. presidential election.

The ultimate outcome is likely explained not by quantum physics, but rather by Newton’s mechanical model, specifically his first law of thermodynamics: In the absence of forces, a body at rest will stay at rest, and a body moving at a constant velocity in a straight line continues doing so indefinitely.  Translation: After a temporary period of heightened threats of attacks (balanced by an extended period and substantial investment in antiterrorism programs), the body (i.e., the Earth) will simply continue in the constant state of conflict and peace, of instability and stability, and of threats and countermeasures.