I think Ogaden's argument was that, without as many treaties (only essential ones), you'd see a lot less wars too, as you wouldn't be dragged into wars but would have to prompt them yourself. So even if treaties serve to deter some wars as you pointed out, they also drag you into other wars, and the net sum is argued as being positive (more wars). You said it yourself, having a web of treaties allows the key players to "line up" and predict what will fall where, which increases the incentive to attack (for whoever is on the stronger side of the predicted alignment).
I don't know if that's true or not, I don't know the history of the game or have any statistical backing, but I think that's the argument being made.