Of course it "can be denied"

Today's Guardian has an editorial dealing with Blair, Iraq and terrorism. Overall, I think it's a fair editorial. I don't have much faith that a change in tone and language from the new British government will have any appreciable effect on extremists or those who are drawn to them, but the Guardian believes a big British mea culpa "would be a start in altering the conditions in which terrorists recruit".

What struck me was this paragraph.

The prophecy that occupying Iraq meant attacking al-Qaida has proved grimly self-fulfilling. Osama bin Laden's network has become associated with resistance to British and American involvement in Iraq - either directly, or by using the fate of Iraqis as supposed proof of the west's malign intentions towards Muslims. Can it be denied that the invasion encouraged a growth in al-Qaida's threat and influence?

I think it can be denied, but I think I would agree that Britain's involvement in the Iraq war probably deflected al Qaeda's attenion to Britain and away from other places. Before March 2003 the "million dead children" in Iraq was a great rallying cry for bin Laden. It was one of his justifications in his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places".

I'm not saying that al Qaeda is less of a threat now thanks to the Iraq war, I'm just not sure how anyone can be so sure what sort of threat al Qaeda would pose if Saddam were still being "contained". We'll never know what al Qaeda might look like today if Saddam were still in power.