I agree Eg77er and to an extent, FDXmech, the plan allows for the US/UK military build up to continue, and the more force you can put in place the better, carry out high intensive, high profile training too, right on the Iraqi border. That, along with a bigger, more aggressive inspection force, free of Iraqi 'minders' could well force more Iraqi compliance.
If war still came, as is likely as these new demands are far tougher than any before and Saddam had badly miscalculated before, the heat beyond March is not a show stopper, as the US and UK forces are well able to fight at night, the Iraqi armed forces, much less the militia being prepared for defence of cities, are nowhere near as well equipped with thermal imaging and other night fighting aids.
Rejecting this move out of hand could be a very severe mistake, it plays into the hands of those who say 'it's all about Bush's revenge and/or oil'.
The problem is that not only the usual knee-jerk types, who oppose any military action who are saying , here in the UK it's very much the mainstream view, likely to be well over half a million marching in London next Saturday against attacking Iraq, the problem for Blair is that they will come from all walks of life and a wider part of the political spectrum than usual.
And yet, given an UN
resolution, support for attacking Iraq becomes a majority view, I cannot believe that Bush cannot see this, because I bet the majority of Americans don't want a war without UN
consent, the last one was Vietnam, yet it seems lessons have been forgotten.
It might be up to Saddam to prove that he is not hiding WMD's, but it's also up to Bush to show that all reasonable steps are being taken to avoid war, that this is about increasing security, not that he's wanted to do this all along, using Sept 11th as an excuse.