^Alt text for screen readers: Most voters want a ceasefire, but hardly anyone in Congress supports one. This chart shows the percent in favor of a ceasefire in Gaza. Among Democratic voters, 80 percent; House Democrats, 8 percent. Republican voters, 56 percent; House Republicans, 0 percent. All voters, 66 percent; all House members, 4 percent. Data comes from House Resolution 786 and an October 20, 2023 poll from Data for Progress. More at stephensemler.substack.com.
Because the politicians know that if they propose/push for a ceasefire then the whole world will SCREAM hypocrisy over US response to 9/11. There is no way to get away with being that overtly “Do as I say not as I do” high-horse.
Now as for the people, most, in retrospect, think the war on terror was if not an outright sham at least a wild overreaction in terms of leading to 20 years of war. When the mission people supported was “Take Osama bin Laden out”.
Then let them.
We learned our lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is a shame that most other people didn’t learn the lesson 10 trillion dollars later and after all our hard work evaporated in less then 3 days.
Most of us learned our lesson. Some of us didn’t. Clearly our politicians fall into the latter group.
And let them call us hypocrites because it’s true. Let’s just admit it and move on instead of making the same mistake again. 
There’s a saying in German: “Konsequenz heißt auch Holzwege zu Ende gehen”.
Loosely translated, that means something like “Being consistent means also walking the wrong paths to the end”.
I’ve actually heard that one before. That’s a good one.
I don’t think that’s right.
The way we operated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had much, much more consideration to the humanitarian toll on civilians, compared to how Israel is currently running their military operation. Even before either invasion, too, the US military knew there was going to be complex and difficult “nation building” afterward.
Take, for example, the way the US and UK troops cleared out Fallujah: leafleting and warning of the assault and specifically letting the civilian population leave before aggressive bombardment. There was controversy about whether military aged males were improperly identified as combatants, but women and children made it out.
The controversy about a cease fire in Gaza is exactly that: letting civilians avoid the places where fighting is happening. The US devoted resources to making that possible, but Israel isn’t protecting those goals to the same degree or manner.
Interesting insight, do you know where I can learn more about this?
Peter Mansoor (a U.S. Army Colonel who was a big part of the strategic shift in Iraq around 2006 to a counterinsurgency doctrine) has written a bunch about the “clear, hold, build” strategy where U.S. troops took territory with a promise they would stay long enough to rebuild it and peacefully hand it over to the local government partners. You can find some of his writing published through the university where he teaches and publishes.
Counterinsurgency (also known as COIN in military circles) was a shift in emphasis, compared to the prior 3 years or so, where the civilian population was seen as partners and a “territory” of sorts to try to win. There was a lot of talk of “hearts and minds” being a key component to winning the war, because foreign occupiers would never have the same level of local knowledge as the actual locals, and having the general population on your side meant that insurgents couldn’t hide in the community.
It didn’t actually work out that way all the time (and frankly, my opinion is that the strategy utterly failed in Afghanistan, even if Iraq eventually stabilized). But that was the doctrine and that was the core strategy pursued by U.S. troops at least from 2006 onward. Civilians mattered, not just in that harming them should be avoided even while pursuing military objectives, but civilian well-being actually counted as a primary military objective in itself.
But even before COIN became the big buzzword in the U.S. military, the strategy did still emphasize the need to take responsibility for the well being of civilians in a war zone. Colin Powell famously warned George W. Bush of what Thomas Friedman would call the “Pottery Barn Rule” where “if you break it, you own it,” in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Powell was clear that he was specifically referring to the 26 million residents of Iraq looking to the United States in what would govern Iraq after the “regime change.” It was always understood, even among the most hawkish strategists in the U.S., that invasion carried a responsibility of rebuilding.
I’m not in any way an expert on Gaza, but from my casual observations it sure does seem like the Israeli military doesn’t put anywhere near the same priority of making sure that civilians aren’t unnecessarily harmed in their military operations.
Thank you!
Just wanted to say though that it’s a bit unfair to compare Iraq to this. Iraq wasn’t fueled by raw emotion and rage. It was a lot more calculated since it was (framed as) a preventive measure. How the US acted the first month of Afghanistan is far more apples to apples. And from my research the US did draw immediate criticism for their bombings. And keep in mind that Afganistan is far less densly populated compared to Gaza.
"The war, launched by the United States as “Operation Enduring Freedom” in 2001, began with an initial air campaign that almost immediately prompted concerns over the number of Afghan civilians being killed. "
The number is 2300 dead civilians in 2001, and since the operation began in October thats 2300 in three months. If we extrapolate that to a full year that pace marks the most intense period of civilian deaths by a wide margin. Which matches my assumption that the opening actions, when fueled by intense emotion, leads to a disregard of civilians life. As an aside, those opening months about the same amount of civilians died as the total amount US servicemen in Afghanistan for the whole 20 year war (2300 vs 2400).
I agree, but a key difference is simply the fact that Gazans aren’t allowed to leave, and power/water/food was cut before evacuations. A ground invasion in that context has to be understood with that heightened responsibility towards civilians.
As for the Afghanistan war, I think that rural versus dense urban settlement is also fundamentally different, and difficult to compare. Most of the controversy around civilian deaths in Afghanistan focus on mistargeted aerial bombardment, which I agree matches the initial operations in Gaza. But as the shift turns over to ground forces, Fallujah is probably the comparison I think matches most closely.
When have politicians, in recent history, ever cared about being called out for hypocrisy?
I highly doubt it. Most of the world wants a cease fire; I doubt people supporting the cease fire would call out the USA like that. I also don’t see Europe griping about it. The only country to really complain will be Israel.
The main issue is that, while a cease fire may be a popular position among the public in the USA, it isn’t a major issue for pro-Palestinian voters while it is a major issue for pro-Israeli ones.
Exactly this, it’s always about getting reelected and staying in power.
Or those that vote one way get replaced by those who vote the other way.
Source? I live in that world outside the US, and am sure everybody I know wants a ceasefire.
We also don’t care about 9/11 as much as the US people do.
You could even formulate the call for ceasefire in a way that shows the US has learned from the “war on terror” blunders. They could even point to already public war crimes and point out this should not happen to them.
There has to be a path to reform and correct past mistakes. The US does not do that, not because of a controversial past, but because of the intent to continue past and current policies in the future. You don’t call out war crimes if you want to keep your options open to commit your own in the future.