There are several things I'm saying:
1) Oil has always been one of the geopolitical interests in the middle east. Some of the other goals of the Project for a New American Century has been to create a democratic nation state, friendly to the United States, in the middle east, which would in effect do two things.
a. lower our dependence on the OPEC cartel
b. give a model to democratic loving citizens in the middle east and show them that dictatorial and theocratic regimes do not have to be their form of government, creating the oft-spoken Domino Effect.
2) The cost of the first gulf war for the United States was $4 Billion, because we had a true coalition that accepted the financial burden for us.
3) It is clear from the quotes I provided earlier that what Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Ari Fleischer were saying was not in accordance with the official documents you just linked to. They stated that the revenues from the oil alone would be $50 to $100 Billion, and that coupled with Iraq's billions in frozen assets, would make the burden on the american taxpayer nil to non-existant. Iraq could indeed finance its own reconstruction.
There was no mention in their quotes that this would be something that we'd have to be reimbursed for. Rumsfeld said directly: "I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction" and then stated the reasons why, i.e. frozen iraqi assets, oil, and a "variety of other things" as he put it. That is the message the american public was getting. We won't have to pay for it. Iraq will pick up the tab immediately.
The second gulf war was not primarily about control over oil. That was one of the factors as I labeled in #1 regarding PNAC's principles and goals for america's interests in the middle east. Is it surprising that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis Libby, all influential high level administration officials who were the most vocal in pushing for war with Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein, also happen to be among the PNACs primary members?
The first gulf war on the other hand was certainly about control over oil, i.e. who's got that control. We did not want the oil of Kuwait, and subsequently Saudi Arabia (who did not have a credible standing army that could counter Iraq's army in the late 80s, early 90s) to fall into Saddam Hussein's hands. As I told Legion earlier, we weren't attacking to take over the oil fields in the middle east. We were attacking in order to keep the middle east from being homogenized under Hussein's power. Keep in mind we supported Hussein throughout the 80s because he was the enemy of the Ayatollahs after the Iranian revolution. There is clear historical evidence that we have supported dictators in order to oppose other regimes and unfriendly governments. Saddam happened to be among that list for a time, but he quickly got off it when he went to far and tried to gain control of the oil in the middle east, which would have put our economy in a choke hold had he been successful.
We have never attacked a country in the middle east to have direct control over the oil fields, i.e. put up Exxon pumping stations and whatnot, selling to US customers at $0.50 a gallon. But we have certainly attacked in order to influence who has control over that oil. We would never be able to annex a country there. But if we install a friendly regime, that works with us outside the OPEC cartel, that would in essence shore up our energy stability and import requirements, leaving us less beholden to OPEC.
Of course we could have upped the mpg CAFE standards in 2002 to reduce our reliance on OPEC (which has really got us by the balls lately, since we're hitting $38 a barrel these days, and rising, especially when summer hits). But politics as usual poo poo'd that pragmatic piece of legislation.
4) There has never been any dispute regarding Afghanistan because it's known Afghanistan does not have many natural resources.
-----------------------------
So in short, the second gulf war was not necessarily a "war for oil." Is that part of the geopolitical interest in the middle east? Most definitely. Some people look at that statement literally and believe we're there just to put up Exxon Mobile stations and call it American, part deux. My opinion is not so blunt, but more political in nature, which I hope I've explained thoroughly.
The first gulf war was definitely a "war for oil," but without us controlling it in the end. It was a political "war for oil." It was about restoring Kuwait's oil and keeping Saudi Arabia safe. Is it any wonder that we established no-fly zones on the borders with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but not Jordan, Syria, and Iran? Could it be because Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait happened to be the largest sources of our imported oil from that region in 1990/1991? I certainly believe so.
Is that some nefarious scheme? No. If they came out saying "Look, we need oil. Our country can't survive without it, it's in our best interests to make sure that the world's oil supply is in the hands of 'friendly' regimes and the flow doesn't stop" then that would be the honest truth. Oil in the middle east is
definitely a strategic asset, but most americans do not see the idea of colonization or supporting "evil" regimes as "what we do" here in the states. Is that a naive assumption of the world's geopolitical makeup? Certainly. Is it the truism of american public politics? Certainly. Could a realist say "We have to take over this country and/or install a friendly regime because we depend on the exports of that nation for our economic security" and get very far in politics? No.
Do I condemn that course of action and geopolitical strategy of its own merits as a truism? No.
Do I condemn the lying and massaging of the message to other things that in and of themselves we have shown to be very hypocritical on, such as removing "evil dictators" when we have propped up more evil dictators than I can count? Most definitely.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
p.s.: I'm an independent, not a democrat.
