This is THE issue.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1365291
YES :D
Safire column in NYtimes today “Saddam’s latest Ploy” http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/07/opinion/07SAFI.html makes the same point. Hopefully, Bush will keep the eye on that ball.
This is indeed a complex issue. The two articles provide a good view of the staunch American perspective. I am certain, view from the opposite side (Iraq, France, China or Russia) would differ significantly.
What puzzles me is to figure out what is the intent of the UN resolutions we are talking about?
Was the intent to destroy all Iraqi weapons (missiles, rockets, technology etc) and therefore lay bare Iraqi ability to defend itself from any aggression by any of its enemies or neighbors? Or was the intent to make sure that Iraq is not able to launch unilateral aggression towards any of its neighbors anymore?
If it was the later, then I am curious why is Saudi Arabia not feeling threatened from the supposed existence of WMD which Iraq has managed to hide away from the inspectors; since Saudis were the ones who panicked the most in 1990 when they feared the Republican Guard is about to invade Riyadh?
The intent of Iraq to invade Saudi Arabia is in contention, there being at least three takes on this. One is that there was no force on the border, another that Saddam intended to block Saudian defense of Kuwait, and the last is that he had his sights on Eastern Arabia. These three fold "truths" appear in much information regarding Iraq.
I have also heard some senior defense department statements that seek the conventional disarmament of Iraq, which I haven't heard linked to the truce agreement of 1991.