Some people expect lots of collateral damage in the war on Iraq. They are wrong, but let's ignore that a moment. Would this actually be any reason to oppose the war?
Well, if the dead civilians come from immoral leaders ordering schools bombed .... yes, that's something to oppose.
But if it comes as part of the fight, as part of the unavoidable cost to defeating evil, then of course it is no reason to oppose war.
So, what we discover is, this "reason" has no substance. It depends on another claim. And it adds no useful information: we already know to oppose wars by murderous folk, and support wars by the righteous.
So, opposing the war based on too much collateral damage, is just judging the US to be morally bad, combined with hiding one's meaning behind a smokescreen.
what was the longterm plan for Iraq?
looking back 13 years later, are there mistakes in that plan that we now know of but didn't know back then?
The big thing that went wrong with Iraq is the Democrats turned traitor.