"Safer" has a lot of variables in it, but here's a few points:

- A world where Saddam and his psychotic sons are not ruling a nation of 25 million people and vast oil wealth has got to be a better one than the alternative. For all the obsession over what we found or didn't find in Iraq, Saddam has a long and consistent history of activity dangerous to the region and the rest of the world, and an ambition to rule the Middle East that he has never concealed.

- The Pakistan nuke ring has been penetrated, which I think is worth a lot as far as world safety goes, and doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. This was the direct result of Libya caving in and squealing on them, and you can make a very good case that our military actions over there did a lot to put Gaddafi in a cooperative mood. At least he is quoted as saying so.

Also important in this context was the considerable pressure the nuke ring and other things put on the leadership of Pakistan, and that country is a lot more cooperative than it had been in the past. This is critical for what we are trying to do in Afghanistan.

Now, for the other side:

The international war on terrorists (in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere) is going pretty well, but I would have to admit that this is largely independent of whether or not Iraq was invaded. We did clear out proven terror camps in Kurdish territory.

On the other hand, North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs are unfortunately proceeding despite our actions in Iraq. If either nation is worried about us attacking, they are hiding it well. But these activities were going on long before we invaded Iraq, and had we never set foot in that country, I think we would probably be in the same situation. Of course, if we were not in Iraq, we would have much more military flexibility to carry off attacks on, for example, Iran, but this would probably have put us right where we are now, except the news reports and casualty counts would be coming out of a different country.