IRAQ + AL QAEDA = ?: So there have been more reports of a shadowy Saddam/Osama link. Here’s the most recent one–the VX gas transfer allegation. Key claim: “The Bush administration has received a credible report that Islamic extremists affiliated with al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October….”

What happens if this is true? What does it mean for people, like me, who lean anti-war-with-Iraq? I’m not sure, so I’m going to take you on a quick tour of my confusion.

First, there’s the dog-poking problem. Let’s say you take a nasty, vicious dog who has never bothered you personally. Then you take a stick. As you poke the dog, it becomes more and more likely that the cur will attack you–at which point you’ll have to shoot it. You’ll be justified in shooting the leaping, slavering, fanged attack dog, even if it would have been best if you’d never poked the dratted thing in the first place.

Similarly, if the US closes off enough of Saddam’s options–if we make it clear that there’s no way for him to appease us and forestall war, if we escalate our rhetoric and our military preparations, BUT leave him enough time to make preparations of his own–then it’s pretty much inevitable that he’ll forge alliances with everyone who hates us most. Al Qaeda is, of course, the premier America-hating celebrity today. And if Saddam is helping Al Qaeda attack us, then Saddam has got to go, even if there were things we could have done in the past to make a Saddam/Osama alliance less likely. In other words, if the VX report is true, then yes, war with Iraq may well be necessary.

But. As Unqualified Offerings ably pointed out, this is exactly what anti-war types have been predicting: Saddam, sensing the net closing around him, makes new alliances which strengthen anti-American terrorist networks. Note how recent this VX transfer was. That was a claim anti-war folks have used to suggest that in fact we should not have been poking the dog with the stick–we should not have been talking pre-emption, talking as if war was inevitable.

And the arguments for and against war with Iraq, as far as I can tell, largely come down to questions of who you believe and which picture of human nature you find most applicable. I don’t think I understand foreign policy well enough to make especially firm claims about the latter part–which forces in human nature are most likely to be operating when–but I can do my best to sniff out believable and non-believable sources. We’ve heard a lot of claims that Saddam Hussein has supplied Al Qaeda (more than other regional scumbags); so far, as far as I can tell, not a one has lasted a full week. Most arrive on the doorstep Thursday or so and are basically discredited or dissolved by the time we hit the coffeepot Monday. This is one reason, I suspect, why neither of the pro-war debaters at the TNR/American Prospect debate (Kenneth Pollack and Jonathan Chait) claimed that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked. The VX gas story seems to have gained more credibility–I’m not totally sure how, but actually, it doesn’t matter for the purposes of this post, since I’m just trying to explore what would change if/when a story of Saddam/Osama cooperation is verified or at least not debunked. For the moment, people bringing new charges need to overcome the skepticism that’s accumulated after several “false positive” reports (as well as the skepticism that I naturally bring to government statements that appear “reverse-engineered” by an administration that has cast around for whatever justification for fighting Saddam that it can possibly find). However, let’s assume the VX report is true. It complicates the picture a lot. But maybe not in the ways it first seems to.

If one anti-war claim about how our war strategy is inadvertently strengthening anti-American Islamist terror proves true (claim: the more we bang the wardrum, the more likely it is that Saddam will ally himself with terrorists), doesn’t that shift some credibility to other anti-war claims about how our war strategy will inadvertently strengthen anti-American Islamist terror? Many of those claims involve possible unintended consequences of an invasion of Iraq. Some of those claims would be irrelevant if an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection is proven (for example, we would no longer be relying on the extremely problematic doctrine of “pre-emption”). But others would not–we’d still have the same worries about Kurds, and Pakistan (US invades Iraq –> anti-American sentiment rises in the Middle East, including Pakistan –> Musharraf’s opponents seize power –> more guys who have built their power on anti-American sentiment have the Bomb, which is, of course, one of the things war with Iraq is supposed to prevent), and whether US invasion will help Osama recruit.

So basically, I’m not sure how the VX charge, even if true, changes the position. There are some obvious ways in which it strengthens the case for war. But it also adds credibility to the anti-war worldview. Since my biggest objection is to pre-emption, rather than to war with Saddam per se, I really have no clue how to balance the differing predictions and assumptions of the pro- and anti-war sides. In many ways that’s why I keep using wussy language like “75% anti-war”–I’m hoping that as I watch this confrontation play out, I’ll learn which kinds of assumptions lead to good predictions and which kinds of assumptions lead to colossal screw-ups. For now, all I can do, it seems, is watch and try to discern the right. And, of course, pray.