It seems likely when we look at the Canadian precedent: when combat troops leave Kandahar, Canada's aid to Afghanistan will be halved according to this report quoting Canadian government figures.
That's troubling for those who think (like me) that Afghanistan might do best using mostly foreign money and Afghan forces. That's how peace in Afghanistan has best been managed in the past (think Zaher Shah, and less peacefully, Najibullah's three-year last stand)-- instead of through the pattern of the past thirty years, a boom-and-bust pattern of vast investment and deployment of military forces, interspersed with periods of total neglect.
But the way that donor governments work is that when their troops are engaged, they are readier to provide aid money. Perhaps it's a reason why Afghans should welcome a long-term, thirty-year presence of non-combat Coalition troops, who stay in their bases and provide training to Afghan forces (mirroring the approach taken in South Korea). At least that would ensure that Afghanistan remains on the world's agenda -- as well as providing some kind of incentive for stability -- without needing to mean that foreign forces are fighting in the alleyways of Kandahar or the poppy-fields of Helmand.