After the failure of the Second Crusade, their were a number of people in the west who were quite upset, as you might expect in the wake of a military disaster. How much of this was a condemnation of crusading in general compared to a condemnation of the execution of the Second Crusade (and then later crusades as they also failed spectacularly) in particular varied, but on the whole people were largely disillusioned with the idea. A lot of the judgments focused on the moral failings of Crusaders themselves which was typically taken as the reason for their failure. For instance, here's a historian of the Crusade:

God allowed the Western church, on account of its sins, to be cast down. There arose, indeed, certain pseudo prophets, sons of Belial, and witnesses of anti-Christ, who seduced the Christians with empty words. They constrained all sorts of men, by vain preaching, to set out against the Saracens in order to liberate Jerusalem. The preaching of these men was so enormously influential that the inhabitants of nearly every region, by common vows, offered themselves freely for common destruction. Not only the ordinary people, but kings, dukes, marquises, and other powerful men of this world as well, believed that they thus showed their allegiance to God. The bishops, archbishops, abbots, and other ministers and prelates of the church joined in this error, throwing themselves headlong into it to the great peril of bodies and souls.... The intentions of the various men were different. Some, indeed, lusted after novelties and went in order to learn about new lands. Others there were who were driven by poverty, who were in hard straits at home; these men went to fight, not only against the enemies of Christ's cross, but even against the friends of the Christian name, wherever opportunity appeared, in order to relieve their poverty. There were others who were oppressed by debts to other men or who sought to escape the service due to their lords, or who were even awaiting the punishment merited by their shameful deeds. Such men simulated a zeal for God and hastened chiefly in order to escape from such troubles and anxieties. A few could, with difficulty, be found who had not bowed their knees to Baal, who were directed by a holy and wholesome purpose, and who were kindled by love of the divine majesty to fight earnestly and even to shed their blood for the holy of holies.

But the presence of a hostile reaction can perhaps best be scene in the writings of those whom the reaction was directed against, most notably in Bernard of Clairvaux's attempts to defend the Crusade in the face of recriminations of his role in preaching it. For example, see here

So there was a line of criticism of the Crusades that developed in the thirteenth century, however their criticism was that instead of waging war they ought to be waging a campaign of conversion. For example, Roger Bacon argues that:

Quartum, quod est reprobatio eorum qui converti non possunt, magis requirit vias sapientiae quam bellicum laborem. Nam semper redeunt infideles ad suarum propria provinciarum, sicut patet ultra mare et citra in Prussia et terris paganorum vicinis Alemanniae et ubique; quia Christiani cruce signati etsi aliquando vincant, tamen facta peregrinatione ad propria revertuntur, et indigenae remanent et multiplicantur. Sed oporteret ut primo praedicaretur fides per homines sapientes in omni scientia, sed qui bene scirent linguas vel optimos haberent interpretes et fideles. Et cum perciperetur quod aliqua gens fuisset obstinata non oporteret militiam solam praeparari, sed sapientes congregari qui non ad tempus nec partem infidelium deberent subjugare sed totum genus eorum quod est prope Christianos ut saltem sancta terra cum Jerusalem in possessione Christianorum semper remaneret sine timore admittendi in perpetuum. Et cum multa hic arcana scientiarum et artium magnalium requirantur, de quibus postea diversis locis facio sermonem, non solum propter praesentes sed propter Antichristum et suos, non est tamen despicienda linguarum et literarum diversarum potestas.

(Opus maius, 3.14)

Since I'm unaware of any translation of this online, you will have to make do with my quick and shoddy translation if you can't read latin (I apologize, I have written this translation fairly quickly and there are definitely going to be some errors, nevertheless, the gist of it should be clear):

Fourth, there is the reprobation of those who are not able to be converted, he requires more the ways of wisdom than the labor of war. For the infidels always return to each of their provinces, just as it extends beyond the sea and near in the baltic region and in the lands of the pagans neighbouring Allemania and elsewhere; because Christians signed by the cross although at some time they may succeed, yet having made a pilgrimage (crusade) they return to their own lands, and the indigenous remain and multiply. But it was certainly right at first that faith be preached through wise men in the knowledge of all things, but also who knew well languages or had good and faithful interpreters. And when it is perceived that a certain people had been obstinate it would not be right that a military campaign alone be prepared, but that wise men come together who at the time ought to subjugate not part of the infidels but the whole of their group which is near Christians that the holy land with Jerusalem could always remain in the possession of Christians without fear of loosing it in perpetuity. And when here many secrets of great knowledge and arts are required, about which afterwards I have a discussion in diverse places, not only on account of present times but on account of the antichrist and his servants, the power of diverse tongues and letters should not yet be despised.