Joe, typically nations are mostly interested in their own benefite (actually most often in the benefite of those making the decisions) speaking of which: In which way would it be benefitial to the coalition nations in question to invest more in Afghanistan (as opposed to simply pulling out)?

Most certainly there are extreme positions in Europe. But then again you find those people most anywhere including the United States. I'm not sure how your post pertains to the overall topic but allow me to ask a question here. How much of your rather continous outrage concerning all things European is actually fuelled by hurt feelings/pride? I freely admit this is a very subjectiv impression but I sometimes can help to think you and many of your fellow-posters feel betrayed by the current foreign politics of several european states and essentially come her to poke fun, ridicule and taunt at every opportunity thereby doing exactly the same thing you critisised in European (media).
On another matter I googled - I found some crazy american chick with some sort of Navy banner in front of the Eifel tower, telling me the third (fourth?, fifth? god knows) World war was upon us. The rest was everything from real estate agents to workshops. No relation whatsoever to the topic at hand. Admittedly I only looked over the first side of search results since my time is limited but still.
Eta: There was a youtube video from a self-styled hippie, whos views of the "War on Terror" are none too favourable but I was under the distint impression that this gentleman is in fact a citizen of the US, which only goes to show that opinions on current US politcs aren't uniform on your side of the atlantic either, are they?

That is certainly a perfectly valid opinion ( even if not necessarily, in my opinion, a factual correct one ) in which case you should take it up with your executive branche.

What is the price tag of Nato exactly? Yes the US maintains a widespread (and rather costly I imagine) net of bases around the globe but let's get real here: this is mostly to further US geopolitical goals. Someone once described Germany's roll to the US as the world's biggest aircraft-carrier - with sausages. You need a steeping stone on the other side of the Atlantic to project your influence into the Middle East, a none hostile, stable, preferably technical advanced nation. Sure there are others that fit this bill in eastern europe and elsewhere. You could shift the bases and I doubt anyone would seriously complain apart from some village mayors but where would be the upside for the US? Only more costs. So what are the standing costs for Nato. Well there is all that brass in Brussel somewhere but that bill is diveded among member states. Probably the occasional manoeuver. Frankly I have no idea how much you have to fork over for such things but I can't imagine it's all that much. On the plus side there are about 10000-15000 Nato troops in Afghanistan not quite the fast legions you seem to expect but not completly useless either.

On a compeltly unrelated (and unnecessary but god damnit, it feels good) note: Yeeeeeeha eat my dust Portugal!

By the way, bit of a transparent strawman there, don't you think?

Uhhh maybe? Perhaps I'm only unusual thick today but I'm not quite certain what you are getting at. Spell it out for a tired man will you? What exactly is the defenition of a strawman in this context? And do you mean me or the foreign politics of the aforementioned nations?