Individuals within the military will certainly have their own opinions, but they are sworn to obey the civilian government, not to decide their own policies.
they, like I, are sworn to obey the Constitution. That, of course, vests power over the military in the civilian branches. So, your ensuing comment ends up being correct, though not by the correct analysis initially.

Where the distinction becomes important is in the case of manifestly unlawful orders. E.g., an order that the military act in such a way as to trample the Bill of Rights. The US oaths, whether by military or civilian officers, all are sworn to the Constitution as the highest civil authority. That must be contrasted to, say, the German officer's oath of WWII - a personal oath to the head of government, in that case - Hitler.

As to Just War, I can without difficulty come up with three somewhat different formulations. One is the current formulation of the Roman Catechism, which is on the Vatican website. Another is the traditional Just War formulations of Augustine and Aquinas (which also differ to some extent), which you can find by Googling. A third is the Southern Baptist formulation, which you can find on John Ankerberg's website.

My point being that I do not want military officers turning themselves into theologians professonally, whether in the Just War area or in other areas as well.

PS - Dayuhan: About Iraq, I favored the policy going in; but opposed the policy to stay (after say, Dec 2003). The "powers that be" differed (as probably most on this board). The question then is whether you stay on the boat or leave it. I chose to stay with the boat - and hope for the best (or, in Ken's terms, at least an acceptable outcome).