(nice phrase, btw - separates us from the Disloyal opposition, with whom we are often lumped, here and elsewhere)

Assuming we can still pull back from an assault on Iraq...how do we then proceed?

I like to hope that a true assault can still be withheld. Albeit that assault seems inevitable, situations can change in an instant - a lesson we learned the hardest of ways on 9/11/01. Nevertheless, the buildup is well underway. Active units are bing positioned forward; reserve units are being called up nationwide to backfill the rear echelon. It's going to cost a lot of money to keep all that fire- and manpower in 'hurry up and wait' mode near what may become the front; on the other hand, it will cost less than an actual shooting war.

Are inspections meaningful?

So far, so good, it seems. I have assumed the inspectors on the ground have been backed up with remote reconaissance at various altitudes, including orbit, to watch for things like heavy equipment movement (that is, the shuffling of WMDs, or the means to make them, from place to place). As yet there is no 'smoking gun'; there is also, as yet, no proof that the gun is not in one place waiting for the bullets hidden in another, which is the essence of the Bush Admin's allegations.

If American firepower is withdrawn from the region, will Saddam simply kick the inspectors out?

American firepower won't be withdrawn from the region. [I'd be willing to bet that even if Bush is not re-elected, his successor will maintain a military presence there for as long as the host countries are willing to accept the lease terms (cf. the Phillipines)]. Yes, Saddam would boot the inspectors forthwith if our troops and materiel were pulled back - he might do so anyway, signing his own death warrant, and that of thousands of his citizens, thereby.

If the threat of attack on the US has been exagerrated, then approximately where does the level of threat lie? Can we afford to trust that absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence?

Bush's thesis, as far as I understand it, could be looked upon as 'supply-side' anti-terrorism. Nothwithstanding the waffling between stated goals of 'regime change' vs 'disarmament', the threat is defined around Saddam's perceived willingness to provide CBN agents, devices and delivery systems to stateless extremists who have no compunction against using them. Mind you, 9/11 was accomplished without any such weapons - the reasoning seems to be, "if they could do that without real weapons, what might they try if they had them?" (Replace 'they' with the enemy du temps)

In both theory and practice, we cannot trust absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. That is what the phrase "eternal vigilance" is meant to embody. There are, however, many paths to that end. The Bush Admin' is not known for subtlety, or regard for the opinions of other countries, or the art of persuasion - in other words, diplomacy in its broader sense. They seem to think that's just fine, too - that they'll get their way because They Say So. Are they deliberately projecting that image in order to obscure the real effort of intelligence gathering and infilltration? Maybe. I doubt it, but there is that about the actions of our current leaders that lends itself almost too easily to charicature. As we see quite often here in the Zone, as well as in the world press, it is far easier to attack a straw man than a real one; to dismiss an opponent as, at best, less than rational, at worst, less than human. It would be, I must admit, admirably Byzantine if Geo II & Co. were deliberately providing a straw man to divert attention from more important work.

And then I think, "Naaaaah... they're not that clever. Are they?"

What does the US need to do to make itself less hated in the world?

Teach by example, rather than by insistence. Champion human rights everywhere, regardless of who is violating them. Exercise compassion abroad and at home, and be sure to be seen doing it. Embody the ideals under which the country was founded, rather than merely spouting them rhetorically when occasion arises. Furnish evidence toward an alternative perception of Americanism, one which is not solely constituted of greed, arrogance, hypocracy and materialism. Do unto others as we wish they would do unto us.

Do we need to pull back from the international stage? [...] Do we need, essentially, to get ourselves out of the ROW?

No - we need to be engaged with the majority of the planet's people in every possible way - but, we need an entirely different approach. We need to be magnanimous, not pusillanimous.