I've been a longtime lurker, who is interested in current affairs but has no military background and suspects that he can't contribute much worthwhile to most conversations. But as this is about Germany I decided to chip in.

This is playing out very badly. I think McCrystal made a grave mistake. He made a big show of calling the german actions wrong. Then he went to the bombing scene although the german command deemed it too dangerous.
Not only is this very embarrassing the german troops. It helps the strictly anti-war far left Die Linke in the upcoming elections. The wrongful bombardments of american troops were greatly reported in Germany. So when an american General makes a big show about the possibly wrongful bombardment now (when we don't really know what happened) he looks as a "typical arrogant american".
I suppose McCrystal also doesn't ralize how hard it is for the german goverment to continue the german engagment against the will of the german people. Note that Chancellor Schroeder had to connect the question of sending troops to Afghanistan to the question of him continuing his chancellorship. Had he lost, he would have been gone in 2001. He risked his chancellorship to even get german troops to Afghanistan.
The american reaction to this incident will only deepen the resentment in the political class. They think Washington doesn't understand the risks they take to even let german troops stay there. You also might compare this to the reaction of the american political class as the war in Iraq became unpopular. Don't have exact numbers right now, but I think the Popularity of Afghanistan in Germany had the same level circa 2002/03 which the Popularity of the Iraq engagement had in America circa 2007/2008. And America is quickly leaving Iraq, while Germany sends more and more troops.

About the pacifism of the german people: My Observation is that most people aren't pacifist. There is a difference between being against the War in Afghanistan and being against all wars. Most germans agreed with the disposing of the Taliban in 2001. However the taliban were disposed for granting comfort to terrorist who attack the west. This aim changed suddenly in 2002 and now it is about building democracy in Afghanistan. Germans don't agree with staying indefinitely in a far away country to achieve such vague terms like "democracy" or "freedom".
This is especially true, when american observers say, that they achieved in bringing democracy to Germany in 1945 so they can achieve the same in Afghanistan. Thereby they discard the special circumstances of Germany in 1945, mainly that Germany had democratic traditions and a long tradtion of rule of law. Comparing Germany 1945 to Afghanistan 2009 not only shows an ignorance about german history but more importantly an ignorance of why Democracy in 1945 succeeded and that the these circumstances don't exist in Afghanistan. At least from Germany it looks as if the democratic traditions of Afghanistan are way fewer than that of Germany. Note that I use the term democracy as it is now applied to the western style parliamentarian, separation of powers democracy, which is the official aim of the german engagement in Afghanistan.

Furthermore Germany has no tradition in sending Armed Forces halfway around the globe. So the concept of defending Germany at the Hindukush is understandably alien to Germans. All of Germany's important wars have been fought in its immediate vicinity. The only major german engagement outside of Europe I know of was the East African Campaign in 1914 - 1918, which is now largely forgotten. Compare that to the US, whose marines already fought in the First Barbary War in Africa and then the subsequent actions in South America, Europe and the Pacific.
Consequently there is also no COIN tradition. There was the suppression of theHerero People in 1904. Also described as "Herero Genocide", certainly not an example for current COIN operations and also largely forgotten. The same applies to the suppression of Partisans during WW2.

Despite the frequent criticism of german politicians I suspect they understand Clausewitz only to well. A war has to be fought according to its aim. Now, if the aim of the german engagement in Afghanistan really is nation building and the defeat of the Taliban, than Germany doesn't fight according to its aim. But what if the aim is to symbolize a commitment to the transatlantic alliance, a try to gain political points in the USA while avoiding to upset the german public? If it is the later, the mere presence of german troops serves this aim. Fighting against the Taliban not only is not necessary but also harmful to the political aim of the politicans themselves - the reelection.