OK, this is a very broad question so I'll be telegraphic.
There is a sequence of increasingly detailed conjectures going by the name GL -- it's really a "program" (harmonic analysis of $\mathcal{D}$-modules on moduli of bundles) rather than a conjecture -- and only the first of this sequence has been proved (and only for $GL_n$), but I don't want to get into this.
There are several kinds of reasons you might want to study geometric Langlands:
direct consequences. One application is Gaitsgory's proof of de Jong's conjecture (arXiv:math/0402184). If you prove the ramified geometric Langlands for $GL_n$, you will recover L. Lafforgue's results (Langlands for function fields), which have lots of consequences (enumerated eg I think in his Fields medal description), which I won't enumerate. (well really you'd need to prove them "well" to get the motivic consequences..)
In fact you'll recover much more (like independence of $l$ results). To me though this is the least convincing motivation..
Original motivation: by understanding the function field version of Langlands you can hope to learn a lot about the Langlands program, working in a much easier setting where you have a chance to go much further. In particular the GLP (the version over $\mathbb{C}$) has a LOT more structure than the Langlands program -- ie things are MUCH nicer, there are much stronger and cleaner results you can hope to prove, and hope to use this to gain insight into underlying patterns.
By far the greatest example of this is Ngo's proof of the Fundamental Lemma --- he doesn't use GLP per se, but rather the geometry of the Hitchin system, which is one of the key geometric ingredients discovered through the GLP. To me this already makes the whole endeavor worthwhile..
- Relations with physics. Once you're over $\mathbb{C}$, you (by which I mean Beilinson-Drinfeld and Kapustin-Witten) discover lots of deep relations with (at least seemingly) different problems in physics.
a. The first is the theory of integrable systems -- many classical integrable systems fit into the Hitchin system framework, and geometric Langlands gives you a very powerful tool to study the corresponding quantum integrable systems. In fact you (namely BD) can motivate the entire GLP as a way to fully solve a collection of quantum integrable systems. This has has lots of applications in the subject (eg see Frenkel's reviews on the Gaudin system, papers on Calogero-Moser systems etc).
b. The second is conformal field theory (again BD) --- they develop CFT (conformal, not class, field theory!) very far towards the goal of understanding GLP, leading to deep insights in both directions (and a strategy now by Gaitsgory-Lurie to solve the strongest form of GLP).
c. The third is four-dimensional gauge theory (KW). To me the best way to motivate geometric Langlands is as an aspect of electric-magnetic duality in 4d SUSY gauge theory. This ties
in GLP to many of the hottest current topics in string theory/gauge theory (including Dijkgraaf-Vafa theory, wall crossing/Donaldson-Thomas theory, study of M5 branes, yadda yadda yadda)...
- Finally GLP is deeply tied to a host of questions in representation theory, of loop algebras, quantum groups, algebraic groups over finite fields etc. The amazing work of Bezrukavnikov proving a host of fundamental conjectures of Lusztig is based on GLP ideas (and can be thought of as part of the local GLP). (my personal research program with Nadler is to use the same ideas to understand reps of real semisimple Lie groups). This kind of motivation is secretly behind much of the work of BD --- the starting point for all of it is the Beilinson-Bernstein description of reps as $\mathcal{D}$-modules.
There's more but this is already turning into a blog post so I should stop.
I found this question a little vague, but let me at least remark on "other examples of things which inhibit big monodromy." Mumford gives an example in section 4 of
D. Mumford, “A note of Shimura’s paper “Discontinuous groups and abelian varieties”,” Math. Ann. 181 (1969), 345–351.
of an abelian variety A whose Galois representation has image strictly smaller than Sp_{2g}(Z_p), despite the fact that End(A) = Z. The keyword to look up is "Mumford-Tate group", which is in some sense the answer to the question
How big COULD the Galois representation on an abelian variety be, subject to all geometric 'things which inhibit big monodromy'?
Reference comes from a paper of Chris Hall which shows how to prove big monodromy results in many cases.
Best Answer
The main idea of the proof is the following: the 1-dimensional representations $\{\pi_{1}^{ab}(X) \rightarrow \bar{\mathbb{Q}}_{l}^{*}\}$ are in 1-1 correspondence with 1-dim local systems $L$ on $X$, on the other hand 1-dimensional representations $\{Pic_{X} \rightarrow \bar{\mathbb{Q}}_{l}^{*}\}$ are in 1-1 correspondence with 1-dimensional local systems $A_{L}$ on $Pic_{X}$ together with a rigidification, i.e. a fixed isomorphism $A_{L}|_{0} \cong \bar{\mathbb{Q}}_{l}$ (this is the famous faisceaux-fonctions correspondence of Grothendieck). Now consider the d-symmetric product $X^{(d)}$ of $X$ (which is just the effective divisors of degree $d$ on $X$) which maps in an obvious way to $Pic_{X}^{d}$, the degree $d$ component of the Picard. If there is given a local system $L$ on $X$ then we can produce a local system $L^{(d)}$ on $X^{(d)}$ by having this local system fibres $\bigotimes_{i} Sym^{d_{i}}(L_{x_{i}})$ over a point $\sum_{i} d_{i}x_{i}$. Now by Riemann-Roch if the degree $d$ is greater than $2g(X)-2$ then it follows that this map has fibre over a degree-$d$ line bundle $\mathfrak{L}$ the $d-g(X)$-dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}(H^{0}(X,\mathfrak{L}))$. As projective spaces are simply connected, it follows that this locally constant sheaf $L^{(d)}$ is actually constant on these fibres, so descends to a local system $A_{L}$ on $Pic_{X}^{d}$. There is also a way to extend these construction to the remaining components using the natural action $X \times Pic \rightarrow Pic$ given by $(x,L) \mapsto L(x)$. It is the idea of the proof, which is actually of Deligne!
As what the references concerns: there is a paper of Laumon: Faisceaux automorphes lies aux series Eisenstein, where he discusses this proof of Deligne. Also here http://www.cims.nyu.edu/~tschinke/publications.html the 3rd book (Mathematisches Institut, Seminars 2003/04, Universitätsverlag Göttingen, (2004) ) from page 145, but it is in german. And also the quoted paper of Frenkel is very good.