Truce Benefits the Working Class

Truce Benefits Working Class

      How do we measure the benefits of a truce in the Middle East?   My measure for whether or not a truce is good or bad rests with my brothers and sisters of the working class.   War interfers with honest work which for people like myself is the major source of our hopes and security.

       By focusing my measure of worth for the idea of a truce on who benefits immediately from a truce on those everywhere who I have the most in common with regardless of religion or national origin.

       If I was to make television commercials in an attempt to advance peace I would show to the world people like myself who are prevented from doing their job.   National governments that do not protect their workers from unnecessary war and its interference with their jobs.

      A truce would immediately benefit the working people so then it is not to be inhibited regardless of the potential for Hezzbolaah rearmament.

      That issue can be dealt with within the truce agreement.

      Now let us imagine what would be ideal in such cases by recognizing past present and future such cases.   In the past errant armies, cialis people like Attlia the Hun terrorized common citizens.   Prior to Attlia Roman Armies keep the barbarians at bay, which was a benefit to the workers.   I suppose the infrastructure workers like road builders and bridge builders most benefited from such protection.

       I know that if I were directing what I characterize as the Big Dog strategy for peace, and using the required "Force", I would direct such "Armed Forces" to protect from all warring parties the infrastructure workers, and their workplaces first.

      In the case of Lebanon the immediate repair of the airport in Beruit is demanded as a vital part of the Lebanon infrastructure.

      This would enable revival of the economy, which is apparently much tourist based, as well as facilitating rapid insertion of EU, or UN "Armed Forces".   Now I am calling what might be often called a "Peace Keeping Force" but in order to actually keep the peace this force must be capable and willing to protect its charges with force capable of subduing not one side or the other, but both sides engaged in hostilities harmful to the well being of the working classes.

      I recognize that such a strategy represents a great difficulty to the powers that be, exemplified by Institutions such as the United Nations.   Still it is consistent with the mission of the United Nations which is to prevent war on the one hand, and on the other to at least enforce wherever possible "the rules of war".

      The UN is not commonly understood.   Many people imagine it as somehow Federal, and think of Kofi Annan as having as much power as the President of the United States.

       The Secretary General has little actual power, though the time is coming when what is imagined as being commonly as a misconception, is called to be the actual case.

       The actual change in the nature of what is known as The Power Balance is what needs to drive the adaptation of the United Nations.

      In Fact the United Nations worked well enough during the Cold War Era, which was a period of a Bi Polar Power Balance.

      This is an Era of the Multi Polar Power Balance and requires alterations and especially where armed force is required.

      The United Nations clearly needs an army of its own.   It is slow, cumbersome and inefficient to over and over have to beg nations to assemble and contribute their Armed Forces in cases of clear crisis.

      It is not as if situations have not occurred in the past, and will not occur in the future.   The reality is better faced, accepted, and by rule made acceptable to all nations for the benefit of those who deserve the protection of an International Force.

     One may feel great sadness when contemplating allowing the use of force against an ally such as Irael is to the US, for what is an actual need is for Peace Keeping Forces that do not take sides and are willing to kill warring parties of either side based soley upon the interferance war is to honest working people.

      Now if warring parties actually limit their war to "battlefields" and are having their war according to International Rules of War, the United Nations Armed Forces may well be directed to do nothing.

      This would not be perfect of course, but may well be the most perfect possible reality.

      It must be recognized that it is not wholly dishonorable as a profession, to be a professional soldier or warrior.

     Still in the case of the United Nations and "Armed Forces", armed forces come in two distinct forms, domestic, and defensive and offensive.

      The Domestic armed forces are Police Forces in general.

      The two institutions needed to advance the security internationally of the Working Classes and needed by the United Nations for consistent and constant presence are an army of its own, and a Constabulary chargable with internal domestic peace replacing failing or corrupt police forces such as exist in Iraq now.

     During the Cold War, and the Era of the Bi Polar Power Balance there were spheres of influence that each side maintained that they were charged and allowed to control as far as what violence and wars were allowed.

      Until the time we are in is commonly understood as distinctly different from the preceeding era, institutional modifications to the UN, will not be possible to achieve.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.