Saltpetre

I cannot think of a single reason that justifies the costs in lives and dollars of remaining in Afghanistan.

Saltpetre wrote, "I have to wonder why Afghanistan is militarily or politically important to the West? ... are we there for counter-terrorism?"

That's the stated reason why Australia participated in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and that's the stated reason why Australia remains in Afghanistan 10 years later.

Given that, according to the official narrative, members of al Qaeda successfully launched September 11 from bases in Afghanistan and then (except for Khaleid Sheikhh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed), who has yet to be put on trial for 9/11), evaded capture for almost 10 years since the occupation of Afghanistan began, should we be surprised that either they or their Taliban allies are able to pull off actions like the attacks on the Intercontinental Hotel?

SaltPetre: Google "Afghanistan gas pipeline"...many answers to be found when you follow the money.
If you understand that Iraq was not about WMDs, nor "regime change" but oil, then you can understand Afghanistan quite easily...just don't rely on the media to bring the relevant facts to light.

In my experience, there is always more than one reason major powers do something as important as engage in warfare. Firstly, the person who claimed responsibilty for the Sept 11 attacks, and boasted he was planning more, was not arrested by Afghanistan and would not surrender to US authorities, giving the US the right to enter the country to attempt to arrest or kill him.
And then there's oil and gas. Afghanistan's north, and the countries to its north, have extensive oil fields, and oil and gas lines through Afghanistan is the oil companies' preferred route, through to profitable markets in Asia.
Many among US policymakers believe these to be quite sufficient reasons to go to war. But they are not reasons enough for Australia to follow. This we did in slavish belief that we must forever pay our dues under ANZUS. Rubbish.
The Sept 11 attacks threw the international spotlight on Afghanistan as never before, and international intervention, the current name for war, has needed more than commercial justification for some time. This intervention has even been named humanitarian at times, and so Afghan society has come into sharp focus.
If foreign troops leave now, it is certain that Taliban, and others like them, will be successful in their attempt to enforce their version of Islam on the country, over the dead bodies of any dissenters if necessary. These are the forces who do not wish to have their capacities disrupted by the presence and activity of foreign troops.
The question is, are there enough Afghanis, with enough capacity, to resist that process when foreign troops do eventually leave. Caring about this is the direct consequence of calling warfare humanitarian intervention.