It was interesting to reread that document in the context of this thread's focus on legalism. I analyzed it like any contract, looking for lawyerly weaseling and logic bombs, because what a contract really means isn't to be found in the details, but in the sum of and interaction between the individual clauses.

It starts out strong with a clear declaration that Iraq is in material breach; but then proceeds to water it down by demanding Iraq's declaration of compliance, and requiring inspections to audit it. The role of inspections is crucial and the UN says that any further action will depend entirely on the findings of the inspections.

It refutes the assertion that Bush already has a UN mandate for war and needn't wait for inspections to be completed. Paragraphs 11 and 12 say that the final determination of the inspectors will be evaluated by the UNSC and a course of action will be determined at that time.

It specifically doesn't set a time limit on inspections. The inspectors must update the UNSC every sixty days. People who know Bush characterize him as impatient, and I'm sure that must chafe.

I know I risk getting my head chopped off for pointing this out, but as long as we're analyzing 1441 objectively, I have to draw attention to what I found:

The US is itself in violation of 1441.

[Duck!]

Seriously:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

That's the logic bomb. Bush and his spokesman constantly imply that we have sufficient proof of Iraq's noncompliance to justify going to war. They imply that the inspectors are incompetent for failing to find the evidence we insist is there. Trouble is, 1441 is worded in such a way that the US is jointly responsible with the inspectors for producing that proof. If we had complied with UN 1441, the inspectors would have been able to use it to turn up the proof.

Either we have no such evidence, or we're in material breach of 1441.

I'm heading for my foxhole now!

--Robert