The battle, if not the war, is over but the question remains: what good came of it all? Saddam's regime seems unchastened and full damage and casualty reports have yet to come.
The ultimate "good" is probably unattainable on a consistent basis. For an orderly world, Security Council resolutions must be obeyed while the rule of international law and the honest implementation of cease-fires and treaties are in the interests of small states. But violations of international law and UN resolutions continue and are ignored.
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is inevitable if some states are more privileged than others.
Awesome power was deployed against Iraq because of adverse inspection reports. It is essential that these inspection teams be technically capable, professional, impartial and inspectors should be above suspicion. Initially, teams were drawn from countries hostile to Iraq but are now more widely drawn.
The inspection procedures and the handling of reports could be more transparent. For instance, who consolidates the reports? How is it done? Is inspection information kept from Iraq's enemies?
This point is vital. Treaty verification in the Sinai Desert and the Golan has been done since 1973. Great care was, and is, taken to prevent leaks from one disputant to another. Apparent violations are carefully handled at a higher level and are almost never publicised. There was obstructionism and deceit in the past. Firm, coolheaded inspectors perceived as impartial overcame it.
Against that background, the detailed media interviews with the American Scott Ritter are startling. He admits to meetings with the chief of Israeli military intelligence in Tel Aviv and with agents in New York "in basements or obscure bars scattered throughout the city". He gave an interview to an Israeli newspaper, claims UNSCOM chairman Mr Butler knew all this and now alleges that Mr Butler ordered deliberately provocative inspections before the recent bombing. While the term "loose cannon" may seem appropriate that doesn't mean he is entirely wrong.
Mr Ritter claims he was acting in UNSCOM's interests but the effect on Arab opinion is predictable. For them and others the UNSCOM reports are slanted and tainted by information provided by a country with a vested interest in Iraq's destruction. UNSCOM's credibility has suffered.
The Israeli press recently reported that a Mossad agent invented inflammatory information, drew money to pay a non-existent informer, and almost provoked a Syrian-Israeli crisis.
UNSCOM has had seven years to search and the tactic of changing things around between inspections has hampered things. Tracking developments became difficult, but not impossible. With fuller aerial surveillance overhead, it is surprising so little has been found in Iraq.
In the meantime, who is going to pay for the Anglo-American operations? Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Germany, Japan and the EC paid for the 1980-81 Gulf War (about $50-$60 billion). The rationale was that the US-led coalition acted on behalf of the UN; the Arab states were being defended; the others were having their oil supplies safeguarded.
The US used the UN Charter procedures and got the necessary resolutions. But the situation is different now: whatever about the Arabs, will the other countries pay? The Security Council authorises operations and the General Assembly levies UN members. This time, no resolution was obtained or even sought. The costs are said to be $10 billion before Desert Fox even started.