More context
More than two decades after U.S. forces crossed into Iraq, Americans remain divided over whether the war was justified. The Bush administration cited Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction, alleged ties to terrorism, and Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations resolutions. Congress authorized force in October 2002, and major combat operations began on March 20, 2003. U.S. troops formally withdrew in December 2011, though American forces returned in 2014 to combat the Islamic State.
Supporters argue the war removed a dictator responsible for the gassing of Kurdish civilians at Halabja in 1988 and two regional wars. They point to the establishment of an elected Iraqi government, the capture and trial of Saddam Hussein, and the eventual defeat of ISIS as outcomes that, while costly, ended one of the Middle East's most destabilizing regimes. Some also argue that intelligence assessments at the time — shared by multiple foreign services — made action defensible based on what leaders believed they knew.
Critics argue the war's central justification collapsed when no weapons stockpiles were found, as confirmed by the 2004 Duelfer Report. They cite more than 4,400 American military deaths, estimates of well over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths from groups such as Iraq Body Count, roughly $1.7 trillion in direct U.S. costs, and the destabilization that allowed ISIS to seize large portions of Iraq and Syria in 2014. Many also point to the strain on alliances and the precedent set for preventive war.
Historians continue to debate counterfactuals: whether containment and sanctions could have held, whether the 2007 troop surge changed the war's trajectory, and how much responsibility the postwar occupation bears for later instability. Public opinion has shifted over time, with Gallup polling showing majority support in 2003 turning to majority disapproval by 2008, where it has largely remained.