Actually the Afghan mission is a politically unassailable element in Danish politics. It's backed by 96% of the Danish Parliament, even out to the Socialist Peoples Party, and usually backed by 60% of the electorate, and confirmed by the recent defence agreement.
The duration of the mission is for the time being open-ended.
NATO usually enjoy a 80% backing in polls (to stay on topic).
Your point's well taken GD, but I was citing (even if inaccurately) the Danish situation as an example of what can happen on the "homefront" and which very much effects what's happening on the ground thousands of miles away.
Canada, for instance, is front and centre in the Afghan fighting. However, there's a strong element at home who would prefer that Canadian troops be wholly engaged in reconstruction projects, and that they leave the fighting to others. One wonders how this might be explained to the Taliban....and to NATO treaty members. Come to think of it, how in blazes does one get the message across to the Canadian troops on the reconstruction front lines?
Well...the question was: "What's wrong with NATO?" I guess the answer for now must be: What do you mean?
Anyway, thanks for the inpot GD.