It's not entirely about oil, no.

This is more of a demonstration war, intended to show the rest of the world that the United States can kick some major military ass, and so all the little countries better shut up and listen. Of course, having our thumbs on the global oil jugular is a handy way of kicking similar economic ass afterwards - you get too uppity in the economic competition - bam, there goes your economy as we squeeze your energy supplies off. It's not so much that WE need to use the oil, ANWR notwithstanding, but we don't want anyone ELSE to get to it without us being involved as the middlemen. You know, petrodollars and all that. The US hopes to shock and awe the rest of world into giving up any dreams they may have had about competing with the US, in any arena, ever. Bush never wanted peace, that'd just delay his plans.

Of course, whether the demonstration bit works out or not (and that might depend somewhat on just HOW we end up winning the military battle), the other main thing about the oil is that we intend to use it to pay for some of the astronomical costs of this little shindig. We don't have loads of countries piling on with actual $$$, like last time.

Basically, the oil makes the war cheaper.

That said, I'm surprised they went so far as to name stuff after Shell and Exxon, considering that the PR on this war is rather important considering the goals... but there it is, in the Navy Times. My my.