I don’t think it’s anywhere near as simple as that:
And that’s setting aside that whether or not we achieved a goal is not closely related to whether or not it was a goal to begin with 
The WMD was a manufactured reason.
It was never a valid reason to invade a sovereign country and kill 100s of thousands of civilians (which was always going to be the outcome). Yeah it was actually surprising that there wasn’t so much as a single half denatured aging gas shell found
But if it had, it wouldn’t haven’t made the invasion any more justified (Bush would have jumped on it as a justification but it wouldn’t have been).
The actual accusations that could (by some stretch of the imagination in the immediate aftermath of 9/11) be a justification for an invasion, like the nuclear weapons program and bioweapons labs, were utter bullshit. And the Bush administration knew they were bullshit, they knowingly lied to justify the invasion.
In fact, the whole thing was an abysmal failure in that respect, with negative consequences for Western security due to the rise of ISIS. Where it succeeded magnificently was in the massive profits US contractors raked in, at the expense of the US taxpayer.
What is proven is that the strategic intent of PNAC was to position the US as a sort of global police force that would, not coincidentally, promote the economic interests of its corporations and the strategic interests of its military (and, also not coincidentally, to hell with everyone else).
What we know is that this was undeniably the explicit well-documented goal of PNAC, that ten members of PNAC were senior, influential members of the Bush administration including Cheney and Rumsfeld, and that Bush was an intellectual lightweight who was in many respects Cheney’s puppet. Most observers reach their conclusions from those facts. How conclusive does the evidence have to be to qualify as “proven”?
Certainly, poor dim Bush jr could have been manipulated into going to war by others with that agenda.
But that agenda- other than skim $$$ - did not materialize.
Does that prove that Cheney ect didnt have such an agenda? No, and Cheney was pretty sneaky and clever. But it doesnt prove that such an agenda was the reason, either.
If people want to believe in conspiracy theories- even those that are very believable, that is fine. But there is simply no proof. I will grant a “maybe”, but that is it.
Not to start. Do note- Saddam used WMD on his own people. He was perfectly capable of trying to send a nerve gas missile into Israel.
The Halabja massacre (Kurdish: کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە Kêmyabarana Helebce) took place in Iraqi Kurdistan on 16 March 1988, when thousands of Kurds were killed by a large-scale Iraqi chemical attack. A targeted attack in Halabja, it was carried out during the Anfal campaign, which was led by Iraqi military officer Ali Hassan al-Majid. Two days before the attack, the city had been captured by Iran as part of Operation Zafar 7 of the Iran–Iraq War. Following the incident, the United Nations launched an investigation and concluded that mustard gas and other unidentified nerve agents had been used against Kurdish civilians.[3]
Now, after Blix found nothing- then the WMD excuse became bogus.
But they were just an org, and we do not know what influence they had on Bush. And their goals totally failed.
We don’t know what influence Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dobriansky, Scooter, Cheney, and Jeb might have had on W?
This is imaterial.
No! Stop trying to pretend that it was just “an organization” trying to influence the government. After Bush got elected, for all intents and purposes regarding foreign policy, they were the government. That’s my whole point going back to my first post on this subject.
How is that in any way relevant?
This same conspiracy theory has been around since Vietnam- America just went to war for oil. Support israel- oil. Defend Taiwan- oil. Afghanistan- oil. Kuwait- oil. And so far, no proof has ever materialized.
So, sorry, until we actually succeed on these oily goals, 
or some actual proof comes around- these are more or less “Faked moon landing” stuff.
Because success would be- you know- proof of a sort.
As a veteran of Desert Storm, I’d like to share my perspective. The original Gulf War was started because of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. The US no longer had an existential threat to democracy and good American values, so one had to be created. That’s why when our great ally… let me check my notes… Oh yes, the wonderful citizens of Kuwait (am I saying that correctly?) called, America responded. The shooting war started January 16, 1991 and ended a month later with 143 dead US soldiers.
It was a great war for us. We defeated a former ally in the region with a minimal loss of life. Plus, we now had international inspections that would feed the free world intelligence on troop sizes and weapon development for the foreseeable future. What a fantastic victory. George H.W. Bush started announcing base closures and troop cutbacks almost immediately.
This didn’t sit well with the Military Industrial Complex which was created to waste trillions of dollars on materiels that would never be used except to line shareholder pockets. After 9/11, they got their wish. We raced into Afghanistan, liberated Kabul, and sent the Taliban scurrying into the hills. But the Afghans had no natural resources except millions of acres of poppy fields. Where were the Halliburton’s, Raytheon’s and Boeing’s going to get the big bucks? What about that country over there with the international inspectors and oil fields? We only lost 143 people last time. Plus, they have almost no military.
Iraqi officials admitted after the invasion that Saddam Hussein made up the WMD story to stop the US from attacking. This is how I know that the W. Bush administration was full of shit about their reasons for attacking Iraq. No president would start a war of choice with any nation that could significantly retaliate against them. If they responded with deadly force, that president’s party would cease to exist due to their error in judgement. This is why having the bomb was worth much more than using the bomb. The fact that we invaded at all suggests that Iraq posed no significant threat to US troops.
Which is exactly what made it such a good manufacturered bullshit reason to go to war.
That’s all true, but not remotely reason to invade to sovereign nation. The heart of the raison d’etre the Bush administration gave for the invasion was a lie: the “proof might me a mushroom cloud”. It was a transparent lie that was obvious to everyone at the time. And when called on it the supporters of the war would go “ah but what about Halajba?”
Its true that it was quite unexpected that there were literally no WMD in Iraq. I know I expected them to find something however obsolete and unthreatening. But if they had it would have not made the WMD any less of a bullshit manufacturered reason
I haven’t tracked it down, but I recall seeing a Bush speech clip from around May or April 2001 where upon seeing it I thought “Oh, that fucker is planning to invade Iraq again, isn’t he?” I can’t find that speech, but I can find references to a Wolfowitz memo titled “A Strategy to Liberate Iraq” from that time. They telegraphed that they wanted to get back into Iraq long before 9/11 or any other fig leaf presented itself.
When I saw Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN, I realized they had nothing but absolute bullshit to back up their claims. Anyone looking at it critically seemed to think the same. I don’t know if Bush really was the one to decide they were going back into Iraq, and they’d manufacture evidence as necessary. But he was certainly a member of a large group of folks in his administration who were willing to accept any thin justification as long as it matched their bizarre goals.
Because the Iraqis kept destroying their own oil infrastructure faster than we could fix it to extract the oil, and because even the puppet government we installed was unwilling to cooperate with us on that. Presumably because they knew they’d likely be killed by their own people for it.
Bush and company were boasting about the oil we’d get before the war and how profitable the war would be. Then all that got shoved in the memory war when they failed utterly at their theft attempt, and everyone went along with the lie because lying in favor of the Right is a standard part of how our culture works.
Sidetrack: the insistence on framing it as “invading a sovereign nation”, as if sovereignty made some difference to the ethical righteousness of the act, has been grinding my gears for 22 years now.
If Iraq was some sort of non-sovereign nation, would that have made invading it OK? What is a “non-sovereign nation”, anyhow?
I was honestly surprised at the time that it apparently didn’t occur to them to plant evidence of WMDs. The whole affair wasn’t only murderously unethical, it was done incompetently. They can’t even do war crimes right.
After the Blix inspection and report- yes, I concur.
Before then, if Saddam had the WMD he was supposed to have? That is a debate.
But after the UN expert said- “Nope, nothing here”- it was 100% bullshit.
Later, they did. Some rusted out munitions, bruing and lost in the sands.
Here is the issue with all the conspiracy theories- no proof. And as we know- “two can keep a secret- if one is dead”.
And not even then- you all know the famous Lee Atwater interview? Well, the dude that interviewed him, promised to keep it secret. Then both of them died- and the interviewers wife founds the tapes and released them. So- even Dead men tell tales.
Watergate? Deep Throat.
It passes all understanding to think such deep conspiracies- blood for oil in Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, iraq, etc that no one has spilled the bean, no deathbed confessions, no tapes found afterwards, no one short of funds, wanting to sell their story. And Cheney has no reason to love the GOP- why doesnt he come out and do a tell all? Or anyone?
It is just plain impossible that such a large and wide spread conspiracy could remain a secret.
The Project for a New American Century had plenty of proof of its existence, they weren’t secret at all. This is a common use of the term “conspiracy theory”, to silence criticism of the Right by accusing people who point out what they are doing and saying of being “conspiracy theorists”.
But your claim isn’t “the Project for a New American Century existed”. Your claim is that the PNAC controlled the US Government to get the US to try and colonize Iraq - a claim that you’ve provided exactly 0 evidence for.
The conspiracy theory isn’t your ‘criticism’ of the PNAC, it’s your claim that the PNAC controlled the US Gov and got it to colonize Iraq.
Right.
Does some of this go back to the Iranian coup of 1953 that installed the Shah? That was instigated by the US and UK pretty much as a way of protecting the oil rights of BP. So there is a historical precedent of overthrowing a government just to get the oil for a corporation. Even if that was a state owned company at the time.