In a helpful compilation from the Washington Post of statements from members of Congress, we see the range of opinion — from cautious praise among Republicans concerned about the exit ramps, to Democrats who like those exit ramps, to those opposed to any surge. The prize for the most unintelligible goes to Sen. Barbara Boxer, who contributes this gem:

I support the President’s mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaeda.

Even for Boxer, that’s a doozy. Whatever you think of Obama’s speech, it’s clear his mission is to increase troops, and it’s equally clear that the numbers of troops we currently have is insufficient. No one other than Joe Biden’s political flunkies could make a case to the president otherwise.

But Boxer provides a useful reminder that it’s a fool’s errand to try to please or persuade foolish people. The president isn’t ever going to win over Boxer, but what does it matter? He’s probably not going to convince Rep. Louise Slaughter (“I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues — like our economy — to deal with in this country. The U.S. government is already spending $3.6 billion a month on the war in Afghanistan”). And Sen. Russ Feingold isn’t impressed with anything short of a deadline for retreat (“I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. … While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there”).

It may be that the president doesn’t really think he’ll win these people over, yet he can’t give up the the lure of a finite war, neatly defined, which allows him to return to the “real” crises — global warming and health care. Don’t laugh — this is what he believes. And that’s what he wants to spend his time and our money on. Obama may sound less dopey than Boxer and less defiant than Feingold, but these are his ideological soul mates, and he’s not about to make a complete break with them or his own guiding philosophy.