As I said years ago:
If American companies got a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, they went to war for the oil, and they got it."
If American companies didn't get a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, Bush was incompetent and couldn't even get the oil."
One of those situations where ANY result would "prove you right". Thanks for proving my prescience.
#########################################################################################
As I've said on numerous occasions, America is a country run by evil, greedy, amoral and murderous bastards who rule behind the scenes of a phony "democracy" in which every four years the voting public is offered a choice between two Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum candidates, the "election" of which makes absolutely no difference to the foreign policies of the nation or the interests of the monied classes.
That was my basic view of the U.S.A. and it pre-dated the war in Iraq by many decades.
You are correct in assuming that the results of the Iraqi oil auctions did not and could not affect my POV of the USA. Why on earth should they? The fact that a previously socialist country was invaded illegally, and had its constitution changed at gunpoint to abolish state ownership of the national resources, and the consequent fact that an auction of those resources was held at all, are proof enough of my POV. The results of the auctions couldn't possibly affect the basic facts of the situation.
The USA sucks. That it failed to achieve complete success in its attempted rape of Iraq is not proof that it's not a rapist. Nor is it the end of the story. The oil once firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people is now in the hands of foreign multi-nationals, with whom American government and private enterprise can deal much more easily. Perhaps prying it from the hands of the Iraqis was but the first step. Only time will tell. But whether or not America fully succeeded in its criminal enterprise does not diminish the criminality of the original enterprise.