Yes

(Longer answer)
Well the President (of the US) is funded by the oil and gas lobby, there were plans to set up oil extraction in Kazakistan and some deals had been already struck. The only problem was that the best (Cheapest?) way to get the oil out and to the sea (and from there to the US) was via a pipeline - the best route being through (or on the border of) Afganistan AND the Taliban was considered "unstable" by the US (some of them had already threatened to blow up the pipeline).
Solution have a war - No more Taliban and the people who are left have just had a massive aid "loan" so they will need hard currency to pay the interest and letting the US buy some land to biuld their pipeline on/in would be a good start.

My opinion, and people are free to disagree with this if they want, is that although oil was undoubtedly a factor in the decision to attack Afghanistan, it was not the leading one.

Firstly proof of the role of oil can be found in the appointment, as US Representative to Afghanistan, of an adviser to oil company Unocal. See:

 http://www.mwaw.org/article.phpsid=673&mode=thread&order=0

This person (whose name escapes me at the moment) also lobbied for the Taliban until the US attacks on the country following the Embassy bombings. hardly a logical choice as an ambassador to the government who replaced his fundamentalist friends.

Further there are transcripts which I have seen quotes from of a Unocal employee explaining to a House of Representatives Committee in 1998 how a pipeline would be neccesary to get oil out of Central Asia. This would have to run through either Iran or Afghanistan, both far from good options at the time, if one wanted to avoid taking it through Russia, an economic, if not military threat.

I dispute none of these points, but people who come to understand these facts often miss out on many of the other imporatant details. The US strategy in Afghanistan of putting in place a group of warlords incapable of controlling the country and ensuring the sfety of oil workers or a pipeline. Instead I believe that US action in the country was driven primarily by a government who wanted to be SEEN to be doing something to combat terrorism (even if that course of action was likely to do the very opposite) and to demonstrate to the world what the US was capable of doing to anyone who stepped out of line.

It is also interesting to note (as few apart from Mumia Abu-jamal have) that the country who may have done the best out of the Fifth Afghan War is Russia. A large part of the Northern Alliance is made up of Tajiks and because of their former membership of the USSR, Russia and Tajikistan have good relationships. It may be the case that Russia, unable to gain control of the country during the "Great Game" of the 19th Century has finally done so. If this is the case, it is hardly likely to be an ideal situation for US oil companies.

Doubtless some of you will be thinking at this point, "hang on Dk, what about the other targets in the 'War on terror', they've all got lots of oil. Are you suggesting this is a coincidence?" My response is no, it is not a coincidence. it is also not because the prime reason for the war is gain control of global stocks of oil. I would argue that it is in those countries with large amounts of oil, where there are the most people pissed-off with the US and its foreign poilicy, because it is they who have disproportionately been the targets.

This is my attempt to analyse a very complicated situation and I welcome others thoughts on it, but remember its supposed to be the corporate media who simplify complicated issues not us. If the Left simply presents rehashed arguments about everything the US and Western powers do being an example of, as someone else described it, a crude 19th Century Imperialism, then we are never going to attract sufficient numbers of 'normal' people to bring about an end to this war, which is surely the point of any attempt to analyse it from our point of view.

Knowledge is Power - Arm Yourself