Note that the Hunt deal is with "Kurdistan", not the "Iraqi government". Therefore that cannot be used as evidence that the Iraq war was about oil--the US would have had access to "Kurdistan" oil regardless--ever since the Gulf war the Kurds would be happy to have Western oil investment. And that is still their plan--whatever the Maliki government wants. Now they say that the Hunt oil income would be shared by all Iraqis--but I suspect
that if the Maliki government continues to insist that there should be no oil deals until the Iraq oil law is passed, eventually the Kurds will get tired of playing the game and keep the income for themselves. There won't be any oil flowing for a while anyway--and by then the Maliki government will likely be a memory.

"Kurdistan" is both the agent and the model of the breakup of "Iraq". And there's no reason why it should not go its own way---especially since it is the US fallback position--which eventually Bush will admit.

It is fascinating that Greenspan has said that the war was about oil. And it's obviously true, to some extent. But I suspect it was also about Bush wanting to be a "war president", especially after toppling the Taliban, with the political benefits that accrued to that. He saw another war he could win on the cheap--having been assured by the only advisors he allowed access to him--that it would be. Strange how that happens, when you reject any advice that might contradict what you want to believe.