Interesting--yes. Correct analysis--no. I agree with him on most premises, but I think the case for Iraq/al Qaeda link is much better than he makes out. Iraq saps intelligence effort from terrorism? That's like saying in WW II, the invasion of Germany saps our intelligence resources from Japan--true, but irrelevant, since both were our enemies.
He somehow thinks al Qaeda can exist without a friendly state(s) to support it. I don't see how. Even Mao's Communist guerrillas assumed support from the countryside. Without it, they would fail. We've cut off Afghanistan from support. Soon Iraq will be cut off. We have intense pressure on Pakistan to curb their support of terrorism, and they have been doing this. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria realize they're next after Iraq.
If attacking terrorism encourages recruiting, killing terrorists, destroying their infrastructure, how much would unbridled success of terrorism encourage recruiting? Hmmm?
I don't think that the author's point is to dissuade Bush from attacking Iraq. I think the point he makes is that non-state enemies can and will survive and perhaps prosper regardless of Iraq.
More germane: he also thinks that non-state enemies can and will obtain WMD's--not necessarily nukes, but bio or chemo weapons.
There is a good deal of supportable speculation that the Md. killings are terrorist operations (and there are supportable arguments that they are NOT.)
But the author's thesis fits neatly with the idea that the MD. shootings ARE terrorist activity. It's not necessarily part of a predictable pattern; it damages non-combatants; and demonstrates that 'there is no security.'
Just an interesting article. I'm ambivalent about attacking Saddam...don't like dead American youth being brought back....