Bagpuss,

"I agree that the threat of war in the future was useful in forcing Saddam into limited compliance,"

At least you admit, that the stance taken by the USA and the UK, was the reason for what limited compliance there was. But according to all UN resolutions limited compliance was not what was required.

"... however once it was clear that there was going to be an attack no matter what, that made his continued compliance far less likely."

It has never been the case that there was going to be an attack no matter what - In co-operating fully with the IAEA and UNMOVIC Inspection teams and complying totally with UN Resolutions - there would have been no war - that was Saddam Hussein's choice.

As you said above there was limited compliance on the part of Iraq. The moment that Saddam Hussein realised that continued compliance was no longer necessary was, the second France came out with it's statement that it would veto any UN Security Council Resolution that permitted the use of force to ensure Iraq's disarmament.