Americans are fairly certain the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but they’re not persuaded that his demise has made them more secure. It is tempting to retreat to talking points and dismiss the arguments against the war out of hand, but the issue deserves serious treatment.

The arguments are as follows:

• Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, did not have ties to terrorists, and there was no threat.

Threats are not considered in hindsight; they are considered in real time. In the 12 years prior to the invasion of Iraq, the major powers (Russia, China and France, too) agreed that Iraq was concealing WMD programs. Both the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence affirm that nothing in the intelligence received by the leadership of the United States indicated any doubt that Iraq was continuing a WMD build-up.

On the issue of ties to terror, critics of the war have asserted flatly that Saddam did not cooperate with al-Qaeda. Again, both the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee detail extensive ties between Saddam’s regime and the al-Qaeda leadership, including an offer of safe haven to Osama bin Laden and meetings between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. Critics rest their case on the conclusion of both investigations that there was no “operational” relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In other words, Saddam Hussein’s government was not helping al-Qaeda plan attacks. Let us note the Taliban did not help al-Qaeda plan 9-11.

• While Iraq may have been a threat, we should have put all our energy into al-Qaeda. Fighting the war in Iraq has distracted from the war on terror.

Since the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, two-thirds of top al-Qaeda leaders have been arrested or killed, including the man who planned 9-11. The chief operative behind the Africa embassy bombings in 1998 was arrested. Six of the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000 are on trial. Mr. bin Laden remains at large, but the notion that had we not invaded Iraq he would be behind bars is difficult to substantiate.

It’s tough to accept the premise that the United States should fight only al-Qaeda, only on one front, and never address other threats until the war on terror is complete. If we pretend that state sponsors of terrorism and rogue leaders with WMD are not potential partners to al-Qaeda, we leave the field open. If nations such as Iran (now developing nuclear weapons and sheltering senior al- Qaeda leaders) believe there are no consequences to their support for al-Qaeda, they will be encouraged.

Aperfect example of the deterrent power of the Iraq war is in Libya. Since the war, Moammar Gadhafi has renounced WMD, disclosed a major nuclear and chemical weapons program and abandoned support for terrorism.

• The war in Iraq has encouraged terrorists; Iraq is a recruiting poster for al-Qaeda.

It is true that terrorists now focus on Iraq as a grievance against America. They also focus on Israel, American “decadence,” U.S. support for “corrupt” Arab leaders and much more. But here’s the counter question: In order to avoid angering terrorists, what else should we do? Cut ties with Israel? Abandon allies in the Muslim world? Create an Islamic state here at home?

• America isn’t safer today than we were before Saddam Hussein was removed.

The 9-11 Commission asserts “the most important failure was one of imagination.” Preventing terror is about imagining, based on intelligence and past behavior, what terrorists might do. It is understanding the convergence of motive, means and opportunity. There can be little doubt that in imagining what Saddam Hussein could have done to our nation, the Bush administration removed an enormous potential threat. We no longer need to imagine what Saddam might do. As a result, we are, on balance, safer. If only we had done the same in Afghanistan before 2001.

Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI.