How the war began
In the months after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the George W. Bush administration argued that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and posed a threat to U.S. security. In October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq by votes of 77-23 in the Senate and 296-133 in the House, with support from majorities of Republicans and a substantial bloc of Democrats. The U.S.-led invasion began on March 20, 2003.
What investigators later found
The Iraq Survey Group, led by Charles Duelfer, issued its comprehensive report in 2004 concluding that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons at the time of the invasion. The report found that Saddam Hussein had retained the ambition to reconstitute such programs if international sanctions were lifted, but had not done so. The intelligence failures became a central element of later debates over the war.
Human and financial costs
The Defense Casualty Analysis System records 4,431 U.S. military deaths and more than 31,000 wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom between 2003 and 2011. Iraqi civilian deaths have been estimated by independent researchers to range from the low hundreds of thousands into higher figures, depending on methodology. A 2013 Costs of War study at Brown University estimated direct U.S. budgetary costs at roughly $1.7 trillion, with long-term veteran medical and disability care projected to push totals higher over coming decades.
The case supporters make
Supporters of the war point to the removal of Saddam Hussein, who had invaded Kuwait in 1990, used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988, and ruled through a security apparatus accused of widespread human rights abuses. An Iraqi tribunal convicted him of crimes against humanity in 2006. Supporters also note that Iraq held multiparty elections and ratified a new constitution, and argue that ending the sanctions-and-inspections standoff was preferable to an indefinite containment regime.
The case critics make
Critics argue that the stated rationale for war did not match what investigators found, that the occupation underestimated the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq, and that the disbanding of the Iraqi army and de-Baathification policies contributed to a prolonged insurgency. They cite the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria beginning in 2013, which seized large portions of both countries before being pushed back by a U.S.-led coalition. Critics also point to increased Iranian influence in Iraq as an unintended strategic consequence.
How public opinion has shifted
Polling at the start of the war showed majority U.S. public support. Support declined as casualties mounted and WMD were not found. In subsequent years, surveys by Gallup, Pew Research Center, and others have generally found pluralities or majorities of Americans saying the decision to go to war was a mistake, though views differ by party, generation, and military service. The question of whether the war was 'justified in hindsight' continues to divide foreign policy analysts across the political spectrum.
What voters are being asked
This survey asks for a retrospective judgment, weighing the removal of a brutal dictator and the establishment of a new Iraqi government against intelligence failures, U.S. and Iraqi casualties, financial costs, and regional aftereffects. Reasonable people reach different conclusions depending on which factors they weigh most heavily and what alternatives they believe were available at the time.