And it wasn't even that wrong at a deeper level. Anyone who thinks U.S. policy in the Middle East is not (for 60 years) spelled OIL has nothing interesting to say on the Iraq War. The variations in that policy (OIL) are endless, and worth exploring, but not if they are counterposed to full commitment, without Nuance, to Bring the Troops Home Now. That is a given from a century of struggle, and thinking _begins_ with it, begins inside the movement it drives, as those in the movement gain a greater and greater understanding of the innumerable interconnections of U.S. imperial policy with the domestic economy, with the fight to preserve democracy at home, and so forth.
So the incorrect analysis No Blood for Oil is after all more correct than any quibbles with it are.
Carrol