Note: technically the "second theory" is not a conspiracy theory (generic def.) because a conspiracy by def. is not just any old secret agreement, but a secret agreement to do something wrong/illicit. Creating/having bases from which to attack terrorists is not by itself illicit; depends on where/how those bases are created. In this context (ousting a dictator / having troops there to midwife a reasonably consensual gov't / which stay there for some time) I see nothing wrong with it. The "second theory" is less a "conspiracy theory" than a strategy theory. It is a theory that the invasion of Iraq was in accord with some secret strategy; were that strategy illicit, it could rise to conspiracy theory... but it's not.

It may however satisfy The World's def. of a conspiracy theory (not sure).

Personally, I'd prefer to call this war The War On What Ultimately Causes Conspiracy Theories To Flourish. I mean a war against conspiracy theories per se... wouldn't it be better to fight what causes them?

But I say that mostly cuz I'd like to fish for The World's take on what causes conspiracy theories to flourish... ;-)

--Blixa