Congressional reaction to the 30,000-troop surge in Afganistan was as tepid as President Obama’s West Point speech. As details of the plan leaked out throughout the day — with more than 30 members traveling to the White House to be personally briefed — few spoke with passion: no one – including Obama – mentioned human rights, the plight of a people at war for generations or the fate of Afghani women. For many Dems, already worried that not enough attention is being paid to the plight of American workers (and voters), the war feels like a luxury – something akin to global warming. Sure, there’s a threat somewhere down the line but hey, America recycles and Obama already added 17,000 troops in Afghanistan earlier this year. Surely these problems will not blow up in the next six months like, say, 15% unemployment: why not kick the can down the road? “Is there any way that we can delay [paying for the surge] so that we don’t stifle the recovery that seems to be beginning now?” bemoaned Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent who supports Obama’s plan.

In March, for the first time in Gallup polling history, Americans by a margin of 51% to 42% said economic growth should take priority over environmental concerns. A September Gallup poll found jobs and the economy the most important issue facing Americans followed by health care and unemployment. The Iraq war ranked sixth, at the bottom of the list. Neither Afghanistan nor global warming even made the cut, though “dissatisfaction with government” came in fourth. A November Gallup poll found Republicans beating Democrats in generic congressional match ups 48% to 44% and, worse, winning Independent voters 52% to 30%. And just before Tuesday’s prime time speech another Gallup poll found Obama’s approval rating on his handling of Afghanistan has sunken to an all time low: just 35%, down 14 points from early September.

If not for Obama’s campaign promise and the Dems’ eternal fear of being labeled yet again weak on national security, you get the feeling many Democrats (especially those facing tough races next November) wished the problem would simply go away with the least amount of blood and treasure spent as possible. Even Obama’s closest allies hesitated to grant their support. “President Obama asked for time to make his decision on a new policy in Afghanistan. I am going to take some time to think through the proposal he presented tonight,” Dick Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois and No. 2 Senate Democrat, said in a statement. Returning from the White House, where Obama briefed them on his plan, Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, called the meeting “civil and somber”; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer labeled it “sober.”

Some Democrats frowned with distaste at the spectacle of nation building in Afghanistan. “I don’t think there’s a reasonable chance of a successful strategy with regards to nation building,” said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who said he was inclined to oppose the surge. “We have a central [Afghani] government that’s relatively weak that has serious corruption issues — so I don’t think that should be our goal, I don’t think we can achieve that.” Others were upset that Obama’s immense popularity abroad hadn’t returned dividends in the form of NATO troops: Obama will be lucky to get the 5,000 additional NATO forces he’s aiming for. “Why are American taxpayers and our brave soldiers bearing almost all the burden in what should be an international effort? Where are Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world?” demanded Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent.

And while Republicans almost unilaterally support Obama’s plan, the biggest concern on both sides of the aisle was how to pay for it. The surge will cost an estimated $30 billion a year on top of the $3.6 billion a month already being spent on the war. A few Dems hoped the offsets would come naturally. “We should see some reduction in costs for Iraq,” said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. “And hopefully the health care plan should relieve us of significant expense.”