Just War as Love for Neighbor

I appreciate Rick's and Michael's responses to my question on just war, but they lead me to rephrase my question:  Can the conflict in Iraq be justified under just war principles without rendering those principles largely useless in terms of their future capacity to establish boundaries on human conflict?

In particular, it seems that the just war tradition is useful to the extent it provides (arguably) objective, ascertainable limits on the conduct of war.  If the stateless forces of terrorism lead us to a shapeless understanding of just war, isn't the whole exercise futile? 

Michael asks whether Iraq's failure to meet cease-fire conditions from the 1991 war may justify the 2003 invasion.  I'm no expert, but that can't be right, can it?  Would just war principles have been satisfied, for example, if the Allies had invaded Germany for falling behind on its WWI reparations? 

Afghanistan seems a clear case where just war principles were met even in the context of terrorism: a state gave support and protection to terrorists who attacked our country and would do so again.  Iraq is different: an evil regime oppressed its own people and added to the instability of an important region.  But where is the imminent threat?  The possibility that American lives might be lost if a certain chain of events transpires seems a questionable trade-off for the certainty that thousands of Iraqi lives will be lost. 

I like Rick's reference to just war as the public dimension of "loving thy neighbor," but that understanding seems fertile ground for justifying a whole range of imperialist motives for warfare.  If we substitute our conception (noble as it is) of the citizenry's well-being as a basis for invasion, haven't we fundamentally altered the just war inquiry?  Maybe we should start talking openly about the morality of such wars, but it seems a stretch to bring them within the just war tradition as it currently stands.  Again, though, I'm no expert, so I welcome others' views.

Rob