Attack defense

There's always been skepticism on the anti-war side of public opinion that taking out Saddam Hussein has made America any safer. The logic goes that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda in the first place, but even if they did, military action in Muslim countries will only provoke more terrorism against the U.S.
In direct opposition to this argument, The Belmont Club posts a very interesting summary of current academic research on networking within and among terrorist cells. One of the most interesting conclusions...(emphasis added by me)

Because security comes at a price in performance and flexibility, Robb arrives at an astounding conjecture: you can have small, operationally secure terrorist groups, but you can't have large, operationally secure cells without a state sponsor.

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard has gone to great pains to document terrorist connections between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. In light of these findings, the argument against the Iraq war seems to lose more of it's already lackluster strength.