John in Michigan,

The only time in the history of the alliance when article V of the NATO treaty was invoked, and the German people forget their promise.

That´s not quite true, I´d think.
First, a bit of history. :)

1) Till the early 1990s the German armed forces were a strictly Central European force. Doctrine and equipment didn´t allow for any deployment outside Europe. In fact if I remember correctly there were only a few air-mobile units slated to be deployed outside Germany in case of war (Norway, Turkey). For obvious historical reasons. And one might add, something all other NATO allies enthusiastically endorsed. :)
(I´ve had read too that until reunification Germany still had some restrictions on military equipment? For instance no submarines above a certain tonnage, no long-range planes etc.)

2) Following that it was more or less (politically) unthinkable for decades to deploy German troops outside Germany. Kind of like forbidden territory.
Remember the Gulf War 1991?
The then German Kohl government (conservative, very pro-American) tied themselves into knots just to deploy some Patriot batteries to Turkey and some mine-hunters to the Persian Gulf.
(Actually some of the British newspapers were pretty funny during that time. In 1990 - German reunification - you could read some articles warning about the possible future military threat from Germany. In 1991 - Gulf War - you could read headlines in the exact same newspapers screaming "Where is Rommel?". Understandably Germans were a bit confused about it. :) )

3) It was the Schroeder government of the late 1990s who started to change things. Serbia and Kosovo.
Which "violated" another post-war German doctrine. :)
No German soldiers in countries we occupied during WW2.
Once again for obvious historical reasons.
That was a Social Democrat-Green government and they faced quite some domestic opposition.

4) All of this means that from a German point of view things are actually changing pretty fast.
In less than 10 years from a non-deployable army to interventions in the Balkans. Followed by Afghanistan. Naval units in the Mediterranean and the Indian ocean.

5) Repeating myself with regard to Afghanistan.
(A few months ago I posted a comment here with lots of links about the timeline.)
As far as I can remember there wasn´t that much opposition in 2002 / early 2003. And the same was true for other European NATO members too. In fact lots of them were eager to send troops to Afghanistan.
It was the US government, especially the Pentagon and Rumsfeld who didn´t want NATO troops in Afghanistan back then. Rumsfeld didn´t want to have to consult with allies so he accepted only a few special forces troops.
Remember?
And after months of negotiations he accepted a few thousand NATO troops but restricted only to Kabul. So that the Pentagon wouldn´t be restricted in any way outside Kabul.
Then the situation started to get worse and suddenly "Provincial reconstruction teams" (do I remember the term right?) were acceptable to Rumsfeld.
The situation still got worse and suddenly NATO combat troops were welcome everywhere in Afghanistan by the US administration.
But now it´s the fault of Germany (and maybe other European NATO members) that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse?

It´s not our fault that the Bush government for months, maybe years resisted real NATO involvement in Afghanistan.
It isn´t our fault that Rumsfeld didn´t deploy enough US troops in Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden and Mullah Omar (Tora Bora?). You know, the guys responsible for invoking that article V of the NATO treaty?
It isn´t our fault that the Bush administration in 2002 choose to rely on the corrupt Afghan warlords instead of deploying some more US or NATO troops.
It isn´t our fault that the Bush government started to plan for Iraq in late 2002 and didn´t pay enough attention to Afghanistan.
It isn´t our fault that the Bush administration was arrogant and incompetent enough to fight two wars on the "cheap".
It isn´t our fault that Rumsfeld didn´t want to hear European expertise and knowledge about Afghanistan.

I do believe that a real effort in 2002, maybe even 2003 might have worked. But now it´s 2008 and I´m sorry to say it, the Bush administration created a mess in Afghanistan.
What might have worked back then with several 10,000s of troops would now require lots more. Wasn´t it an American general saying in an interview this year that we would need 400,000 troops in Afghanistan now?
If that´s true then blame your current US government for opportunities lost because I don´t see a NATO force of several 100,000 soldiers deployed to Afghanistan.

My examples were just provided as an example of real world politics in the years after 1990. You kmow, things like you and Rumsfeld and Bush would ignore.

In none of the examples you provide (before Afghanistan in 2001) was article V invoked, so I am not sure of your point.

Duh! Maybe you need some explicit examples.
Simply put, unlike the UK, France or the USA we don´t have any experience in intervening in former colonies after 1918?
Not to mention that your administration wasn´t that eager to get the persons responsible for that article V violation.
Where is Bin Laden and Mullah Omar today?

Also, I was referring mainly to the lack of popular support, not the actions of the German government (which I noted had at least attempted to give NATO some support). I was responding to Zyme's insight that "the [German] people do not believe it is in our interest", in other words, that the lack of popular support for Afghanistan is based on more than just the historical reasons you mention.

My point 5 dealt extensively with Afghanistan after 9/11. And it also mentioned that domestic opposition in 2002 / early 2003 was pretty low key.
Back then support for deployment in Afghanistan was pretty high.

Simply put, your American administration made a mess in Afghanistan. We are not responsible for that mess. And we (Europeans) don´t have the troops to relieve you of that mess today.

Before you blame us, kindly look into a mirror!
Your Bush administration - through incompetence or simple ignorance - created that mess.
We can´t clear up this mess on our own.

Not to mention that your system probably broke down in late 2002 / early 2003. How else can you justify cases like Dilawar?

"The coroner, Lieutenant-Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, told a pre-trial hearing that his [Dilawar] legs 'had basically been pulpified ... I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus.'"

Care to tell me about the results of that pre-trial?
Why should we support war criminals?