If anyone here has read 'American Theocracy', a book critical of U.S. foreign policy and practice, you may recall the author's arguments that the U.S. military, one of the world's largest consumers of oil, has been co-opted in many ways as a sort of 'security firm' for Big Oil.

No doubt, as our security and energy policies, spurred by the OPEC embargos, a growing military involvment in Middle Eastern politics, terrorism and related hyperbia have served to justify, as well as increasing demand from other parts of the world, protecting America's energy supplies has increased in importance in American foreign and trade policies.

The question isn't whether this is true or not, it's what we are doing about it. We need to not be forced into relying on energy supples from conflicted and violence-prone regions, we need to reduce our dependence on oil and oil products and we need to do it in a way that does not abandon our security agreements with foreign trading partners who have agreed to share security responsibilities with the U.S.

It's a tough nut to crack.

In healthcare reform, however, we have a least a part of the nutcracker. Both Obama and Clinton know this, and both are in favor of healthcare reform.

The crux of it is, American companies, including Big Oil, carry a load that their competitors from other nations do not, healthcare. In Europe and Asia, as well as other parts of the world, healthcare is much less considered the administrative burden of the company one works for. Healthcare is an independent concern. The gives a company much more liberty. A liberty that is denied, in some ways, to American companies that must bear this administrative responsibility. Is the answer complete nationalization of the healthcare industry? I don't think many people really beleive so or want it that way. The answer may be, however, to enable healthcare providers to separate from non-healthcare corporations and stand on their own as a truly independent sector of the U.S. economy. The will require some action of Congress and the rest of the U.S. Government.

How does this affect security? One positive effect it will have is to reduce the desperation of U.S. companies, like Big Oil, that seems to justify some of the more predatory kinds of moves that elicit the kind of just criticism that comes from the author of 'American Theocracy'.

Without the additional burden of healthcare administration, U.S. oil companies will be under less pressure to produce profit and make the kinds of moves that require more protection by our Armed Forces. Separating healthcare from non-healthcare administration is a smart move, security-wise and economy-wise and enhances not only our security but also the competitiveness of our companies without, as in the extreme case of Big Oil, the necessity of lowering the status of soldiers to the equivilent of gas station security gaurds. It's a tough reality to consider, but for the good of our Armed Forces and our economy, I don't think we can afford to ignore this criticism, nor overreact, but be prepared to meet it with policies that make sense and are doable.

We can enable U.S. companies to compete in the global marketplace, reduce our need to protect Big Oil profits with the U.S. Armed Forces, and enable better, more widely available and less expensive healthcare by greater separation of healthcare responsibilites from other sectors of the U.S. economy, especially Big Oil. Both candidates support measures in this direction, and if more Americans really understood what some of the long term benefits of such policies would be, they would have greater support from the electorate.

Thanks for reading,
Donald C. Lindsay
Obama, 08