While it is true that wars are usually glorified by those who survive them, or those who propose them, I am not sure that responds to the question.
I abhor this war. But I do have some real conflicts, which don't resolve with simplistic answers. One of them is that, like Thomas Jefferson, I hate tyranny. High or low. Whether enforced with torture, as is documented in the Hussein regime, or by emotional blackmail or the threat of violence, as occurs in many domestic arrangements. The proposition that under some circumstances justice -- supported by the use of force -- is the neareast that societies can get to organized morals (a paraphrase of the Reinhold link Beccy gives above) strikes me as very real but very dangerous. I mean that it could much too easily be used by lame brains as a justification for injustice.
The Hussein regime was certainly not going to acheive any rule of law under Saddam and his lads. The descriptions of their approaches to dealing with diverse opinions is even more gutwrenching than the pictures of battle currently coming from the desert.
I think there are other ways to deal with diplomatic problems, that we in the U.S. are really weak in, which come under the collective heading of public relations and diplomacy. But I can't think of any way to break the Hussein tyrrany over ancient Ur than force. In any case, force is what we are in. Given the facts of today there is only one viable position, which is to go for a fast surrender, gloves off and chips fall where they may. Given where we are, the only way out is to fight like hell. Whether we should or should not be there has become a theoretical exercise.