So what happens, if someone has a conspiracy theory, and is later vindicated?
Like when I said, many years ago, before it started (and from a UK perspective), that the war in Afghanistan was about Gas and gas pipelines, and that Iraq was about oil and contracts? I couldn't prove it, I couldn't take it to court. In fact I personally still can't prove it or take it to court. Doesn't mean I'm wrong or insane.
When I said, before the invasion, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that it was a false pretext for war. That was a conspiracy theory at that time. What is it now? Just a conspiracy that happened, or is it just politics and history?
1. Gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq were both discussed in the press at the time, especially the left-leaning press. But they were offered as explanations for the true
motivations of the US (and sometimes British - it was never clear how the UK was going to be involved with these) government for going to war.
Arguing about motivation and "the causes" is indeed "just politics and history". Many commentators would point quite instinctively to a variety of factors motivating the wars in question, and would note that it's quite possible for such things to start because of one thing then add in other motives as they are planned.
Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941 after stating in the summer of 1940 that this would knock out England's last hope on the continent (so a strategic logic). By early 1941 the planning was emphasising plunder of resources (so an economic logic). By spring 1941 the planning had decided not to install puppet governments but to annex territory into a colonial empire while also killing communists wherever they were found (so an ideological logic).
Similarly, with Iraq, there were potential strategic benefits (to US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel), economic benefits (oil), personal motives (Saddam tried to assassinate Daddy, unfinished business from Bush Sr's administration), and ideological motives (bringing democracy, and later on after the invasion humanitarian claims like overthrowing a murderous tyrant).
Reducing this complexity to one factor alone would not be good analysis, but would not require
conspiracy theories to bridge the analytical gaps and shortfalls. Monocausalism can however tip over very easily into conspiracism.
2. "No WMDs" was discussed in some parts of the press at the time, notably in the Guardian. There was quite a widespread debate globally on WMDs, not least because the UN was skeptical as were many European states. Intelligence services worldwide were partially fooled. Comparing Britain and the US, the actions of the Blair government (the 'dodgy dossier') were arguably more cynical than the actions of the Bush administration, which appeared to genuinely believe the bad intelligence. Yet the 'stovepiping' of faulty intel was discussed at the time, ditto the politicisation of intelligence. There was also manipulation/corruption of parts of the media, eg the NYT being used to attack critics and skeptics of the WMD claims. (That resulted in convictions later on, as well as the ending of journalistic careers.)
So no, that one is also not a conspiracy theory.
Many of what you deem conspiracies were, before proven, conspiracy theories. You just don't want to call them that, because they weren't unsubstantiated nonsense by people wearing tin foil hats.
Except the two examples you gave weren't conspiracies. The promotion of WMDs as a casus belli was done entirely in the open. There were massive leaks at the time and a torrent by 2003-2004. There was extensive media discussion of the finer details and aspects. When it came to the crunch, the UN's sanction was incomplete, showing that the US had failed to entirely persuade the international community as well as many key European allies that they had an airtight case. Thus the extensive discussion after 2003 of Iraq as an 'illegal war'.
Look, I was a daily Guardian reader and weekly New Statesman reader in 2002-2003, back before broadband was widely available, and I was completely against the war; I went on the march in London.
My media did not let me down - but I knew already at the time that other parts of the British press were letting their readers down, and that the US press was not being nearly skeptical enough or was allowing itself to be used. My elected representatives let me down. US politicians let their constituents down - not least because they didn't want to be smeared as many Democrats had been for opposing Gulf 1, so they went for the hawkish option for political reasons. As was discussed openly at the time!
How old were you in 2001-2003 and what were you reading by way of media at the time?
