Great Article Kingbee!
I never gave much credence to the "war for oil" rage. I heard the same thing chanted back in 1990-91, yet getting our hands on oil was not made part of our agreement with Kuwait, the UN resolutions for use of force, the agreements between the U.S. and Coalition countries, the Safwan Accords (which became the basis for the ceasefire agreement), or UN Resolutions based on the ceasefire. It's strange that, if oil was the reason then, oil rights were never part the result. Even after we held all of Kuwait's oil fields, and much of Iraq's.
So, since "No War For Oil" and all its derivitives are kind of catchy things to yell at a rally, this, much less popular war, seemed like a likely time to dredge up the past.
As you point out though, it doesn't seem to be a likely reason to go to war, in light of the fact we've never even tried to capitalize on the fact we held all Iraq's oil up until the time the fields were turned over to the government of Iraq.
You also make a pretty good point about domestic oil. It is more expensive, so why wouldn't we expect to see higher prices overall at the pump?
For the good or the bad of it, oil is the life's blood of the "1st World" economies. With China becoming a major player, Japan's consumption expanding, European nations showing no signs of giving up their piece of the oil use pie, and even Australia getting in on the use action, what's a supply & demand scale to do? Up, Up, Up, and away!!
If we all weren't so short-sighted, we would be racing towards alternatives. However, that starting gun must have come with a silencer. ;~D