Willravel

That's a good point, but enlistment is down and people are being required to extend their tours now more than ever.
That actually just reminded me of a discussion I had about this with a military friend back in 2003. He said that even though it was probably wrong to invade Iraq, it wasn't illegal and he had to follow orders. He gave me the "Saddam must be stopped" line. I'm afraid it's not that simple.

I'm going to summerize my answer as I talked at him for like 3 hours. When you take the oath to join the military, you swear to obey lawful orders, yes? And you can't obey unlawful orders, yes? 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' The idea was coined most prominantly at the Nuremberg trials, when the "I was just following orders" defence was finally and totally forbidden. So, if I can prove the invasion of Iraq is illegal, then you have a legal obligation to refuse the order?

The United States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government equivalent to the "law of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2. The Nuremberg Principles, which define as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing." specifically names a war of aggression as a crime. Also, under the UN charter, which the US has signed in good faith, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is allowed: in collective or individual self-defence against and actual or imminent armed attack, or when the Security Council has allowed the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of the circumstances existed in 2003, therefore the action of invading was unlawful. Read Article 51 of the UN Charter for yourself. It's really cut and dry. While Bush used the language in 2003 of a "preemptive" strike, the reality of the situation is better described as a preventive strike. There was no claim made or evidence produced before the war to prove that Iraq was supplying WMDs to terrorists or that they even possesed them. The "regime change" excuse used by the administration is specifically and clearly barred under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which forbids "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Even former House Majority Leader, and Republican Dick Armey said that an unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law.

As you are, judging by your post, an honorable and loyal military officer, isn't it possible that it's your duty to refuse an illegal order?

We could have continued to work with the UN. Obviously the inspectors and sanctions were a success, as he had no weapons of mass destruction.
That is, of course, the problem. We should have seen an insurgency coming and we should have done the entire thing differently. Even if the war weren't illegal, the war was waged wrong. We should ahve worked with members of both parties together in order to remove Saddam from power. The idea is to empower both sects and allow them to see that they can work together for a common goal. We didn't do that. We dropped bombs on crowded cities and there was a great deal of collateral damage. To them, this was more of the same. More American bombs killing civilians while targeting political figures. That's a big part of why we're hated over there. We should have learned from Korea that we need to understand a potential enemy before entering into a potential conflict situation. The North Koreans to this day think that the US was trying to invade, not to protect the South. Watch Fog of War, as it sheds amazing light on that.
What if we're just making it worse? We obviously don't have the manpower to stop the civil war, and our soldiers are targets out there. The real question to ask is: are we making it better or worse? I don't have an answer for that, and I doubt there are more than a hanful of military commanders on the ground who could answer that. The president can't answer it. Stephen Colbert can't answer it.
What if they get sacked again while we're there? Who's to say we're preventing that?

I can agree to disagree with you on the intent, but I'd really apprecaite it if you were to reevaluate your thoughts on the connections between Iraq and 9/11. I think that if you were to really step back and look at this thing, you'll see that the only connection between 9/11 and Iraq was in the words of our president.