I haven't had time to look at all the links, but having read the piece from the Independant, there isn't a lot in there that alleges the war was "about oil" as oppose to anything else. It's also obvious that BP and Shell would, naturally be concerned about being left behind vis-a-vis the likes of Total/Fina which is a French firm. Remember the "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" seemed to be quite content to see the British, but mainly the Americans do all the fighting and spend all the money.
In one respect their fears would be shown to be justified as US firms got the lion's share of contracts in the aftermath of the war. One of the main winners was an American firm called Haliburton that once numbered among its board members the US Secretary of State, whose name eludes me at the moment. This, incidentally was the same Haliburton that was one of the main contractors on the BP operated Deepwater Horizon rig that blew up in the Gulf of Mexico last year. You may remember that President Obama made a lot of capital by emphasising the damage done to America by British Petroleum. Although I can't guarantee it, I don't remember Barak mentioning Haliburton once when he was talking about the disaster.
Two books that might be worth reading that could put this kind of story in perspective are "See No Evil" by Robert Baer and "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid. Definately worth reading as they both show the change in U.S. policy from the end of the Reagan era and the beginning of Dubya's time.
