Sigh. No, it is not, you narrow-minded idiot.
This strain of anti-war argument is especially pathetic, because it betrays a huge lack of imagination on the part of the speaker. Evidently people like this author think that (a) the only violence Saddam can do or cause against us would come in the form of an Announced, Massive Attack In A War He Declares Against Us, and that therefore (b) if he doesn't do that, we're all safe. The rest of the argument is indeed quite simple: "He won't do that, because he's not suicidal."
There's one problem. That's not the only way Saddam and his WMDs can harm us. He can give them to other people to use. He can secretly spin off elements of his armed forces into quasi "independent" groups which nominally Have No Official Connection To Iraq Whatsoever. Then "they" can attack us.
In short, Saddam can attack us, kill some Americans, and simply not announce to the world that he's the one behind it. Indeed, that's what he's most likely to do (this follows immediately from the anti-war "Saddam's not suicidal" argument, in fact!), and in all probability it's what he's been doing.
But this possibility - apparently - leaves the anti-war folks dumbfounded. Why, all wars are overt, they apparently think. If Saddam attacks us surely he'd put his face on a big videoscreen and make a televised-phone call to the White House to explain that he's attacking us first. After all, that's how it works on TV and in the movies. That's how "Dr. Evil" does it in those Austin Powers movies!
Again, the only type of military violence the anti-war people seem to know about and comprehend is overt, declared military strikes. Funneling materiel to terrorist groups, secretly training and aiding them, distancing himself from these private armies so he can keep his hands clean - the anti-war folks simply can't grasp any of these possibilities.
The end result is that the anti-war zealots end up (ironically) telegraphing the following message to the Saddams of the world: "If you want to attack us or do harm to us, make sure that any violence is not performed by your official armed forces, but is done through middle men and private armies to which you can marginally plausibly claim you have no 'connection'. Because, if you do so, we won't fight back at all, we'll argue with anyone who supports fighting back, and we'll wink our eyes and pretend that we actually believe your hands are clean."
That's the result of this type of narrow thinking. The result is to encourage fighting via terrorists and suitcase nukes rather than overt missile strikes and invasion forces.
And then people whose heads are steeped in reality rather than utopia have to clean up the mess and deal with the terrorists which the anti-war people invite to our shores, all the while listening to a cacophony of whines from them.
Yes, truly ironic indeed.
These are the same people, remember, who insisted that Fidel Castro, the Sandinistas and the Viet Cong, maong others, were all "freedom fighters".
The concept of "surrogate warfare" never penetrated their ever-furrowed and compassionate brow. So don't expect them to solve 2 + 2 either...
We have a winner......bombs away....
I would add, also, that Saddam's past actions have not been notable for their rationality.
If one were to judge from his ill-advised wars with Iran and Kuwait, not to mention his internal use of WMDs, one cannot very easily dismiss the possibility of Saddam impulsively popping off a nuke (at Israel, most likely), in the expectation that the Islamic world would rally behind him.