Why Numbers Matter

If you believe everything that comes from the Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis, recent unemployment figures indicate that the national employment picture is improving. This is a false assumption made by a desperate administration seeking to turn a dismal employment picture into a reelection fairy tale.  

The recent numbers indicate that the economy created 227,000 new jobs, but what about all the jobs that were lost due to the recession/depression? These lost jobs represent a negative number to the overall growth or replacement factor, and until the economy replaces them with new jobs, the unemployment figures cannot begin to realistically reflect a healthy growing economy. According to Federal government, the number of jobs that have been lost during the current recession/depression (2009-2011) is estimated at 2.5 million, so before economic recovery based on employment can be accurately calculated, these 2.5 million unemployed people would have be able to replace their lost job with a new one, at the same income level enjoyed before the recession/depression, with the ability to recoup income losses incurred during the entire time they were unemployed. 

What is not being addressed by these government figures is not just how many new jobs are coming on line or how many people are being reemployed, but are these new jobs at the same or greater income rate than the ones that were lost? Let's examine this under a new paradigm.  

If a professor in Texas is making $80,000 per year working at Texas A&M and due to state budget cuts becomes unemployed, they would have to replace their lost income with income greater than or equal to its previous level. If the unemployed professor finds a part-time job teaching two classes per semester as an adjunct (academic temp) and now makes $25,000 per year, they are still $55,000 in the hole not counting benefits, which account on average of 25-30% of an employees gross income.  If they remain underemployed for three years due to employment supply and demand, (typical competitive job market pressure) they would have lost $90,000 in unrecoverable gross income. How do they make this loss up in a cycle of diminishing returns? Since the professor might work at multiple colleges in an effort to teach four classes and earn $55,000, they are still under-employed, but not employed full time since none of these jobs provide benefits or professional growth.

One could argue that the professor is technically employed, but since they are not listed on the unemployment roles, and since they have stopped officially looking for full time employment due to a competitive job market or the lack of jobs in their field, they are not counted on any unemployment statistics. In essence they have fallen off the unemployment grid. The longer this continues, the longer the professor will continue to lose unrecoverable income because they are underemployed.  

What isn't being addresses in the government unemployment figures is not just the number of new jobs, but the kind of jobs created in comparison to the ones that were lost in each government classification.If the professor (out of desperation) takes a full time job at Chick-fil-A for $7.50 per hour, does this count as full time employment? Technically yes, but who would agree that this new full time job compares to their previous career?   

Some would argue that unemployed people can be retrained, but with three college degrees (bachelor, master and PhD) who would hire this individual especially if they are over forty-five years of age?

Supporters in the current administration and economist who can't do simple math will state that this professor has more employment options than the steel or autoworker, but they are not taking into consideration that age, education, experience and salary history can be just as great an impediment to full-time employment as skills or trade-crafts that have become antiquated, uncompetitive or outsourced.

As President Ronald Reagan once said "a recession is when your neighbor loses their job, and a depression is when you lose yours..."

Commander and Sheep

When commenting on the current political season, President Obama stated that candidates for the Republican nomination have a "casual" attitude when it comes to sending military men and women in harms way and claims (in part) that he hasn't started a war.  


Although technically true, Obama has been Commander and Chief for three years completing what was left undone by the preseeding administration just as President Truman did after the death of FDR and Johnson after Kennedy, oddly enough both Democrats.  It is important to note that all of the presidents since Truman (except Clinton big surprised) have served in some capacity in the armed forces either on active or reserve status. Only Obama and Clinton have never served and yet both pontificated their abilities to command troops under fire even though neither are qualified or experienced in military force of arms. 

It is not so much that some politician may have a casual attitude towards warfare, but that Obama is projecting a pretense that after just three years as CnC, of the largest, powerful and most professional military force yet to exists, he has somehow evolved into some type of warrior poet and is thus capable of concluding the operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. Experts predict that less than two years after the last combat effective fore leaves both Afghanistan and Iraq, theses countries will fold like a cheap house of cards much like the government of South Vietnam did after the last American combat troops left that country in 1969, and we all know the blood-bath that followed.

After the SEALs popped and dropped Osama Bin Laden, President Obama presented to the world (and the American people) his prowess as the operational commander of this exercise, someone capable and experienced enough to command at the highest level some of the most experienced and effective professionals available in the US military arsenal. In reality Obama could not have held such a position since he is both unqualified and inexperience in combat operations of this magnitude.

What Obama did was give the  military the operational nod much like a customer at a fine restaurant tells a waiter what meal he wants prepared. Its the chief with years of dedicated experience that makes a five-star meal an experience to remember, not the water-boy who refills your glass.

Interview with Dr. Hennefer

What can you tell us about your new book?

The book is an investigation on how corporations based on delivering a military product verses a consumer product. Most organizations sell a product such as coffee, shoes, computers, etc., but PMCs sell military expertise that for the most part cannot be found in just any Wall Street corporation. The book focuses on the ability of former military professionals such as the British SAS, Army Rangers, or Navy SEALs, to use their skillsets in conducting military operations in an effort to provide a service to non-government organizations (NGOs) or governments without specialized military capabilities such as a standing army of their own.

How did you become interested in this subject?

I was watching the Charlie Rose show about how small governments use PMCs to repel guerilla and anti-government organizations within their countries. Most PMCs started in Western Africa and became very effective at limiting or destroying these organizations. Countries like Sierra Leon didn't have an effective army or air force, so they just hired one.

How does the use of PMCs impact future military or civil conflicts?

In effect, any organization or for that fact an individual who can afford to hire a PMC can do so. All you need is money.

Will the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan help or hinder US interest in the future?

Definitely hinder. What the Obama administration doesn't understand is that it is easier to declare peace then achieve it. My prediction is that within a year after the last effective combat troops leave this region, the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda will overrun the country just like the North Vietnamese did which precipitated the fall of Saigon.

What about current reduction of the military budgets?

This is a huge mistake. It takes a long time to train and develop key military forces such as we have now. To reduce the US military will have the same effect as it did after World War I and have the same effect on our ability to initially defend ourselves in a global conflict as it was in 1941. This is a lesson that we often over look, especially those outside of the military. It takes about six years from the time someone volunteers for the SEALs to be ready for combat operations. These are professional soldiers, not employees from a temp agency.

Can anyone hire one of these PMCs?

Pretty much as long as you are willing to pay both the financial and ethical price. Like they say, if you have to know the price, then you can afford to ask. On average someone wanting to hire a PMC which includes a limited army, navy, air force, etc. should be willing to shell out (no pun intended) about a billion dollars per year, which as you can tell, limits the field of those in the private sector to a select few.

When will an e-book version be available?

I have a book already converted from a traditional format to an e-book so that it will be available in all major platforms (iPad, Kindle, etc.) and it should be ready in about two months. The price will be less than $2.99 simply because the cost of printed in the traditional sense has been eliminated due to new and emerging tablet technology.

New Book Available Now

The Best Kind of War is a detailed account of how Professional Military Corporations (PMC's) or mercenary organizations have evolved into major international corporations. As force multipliers, PMC’s operate in a flexural state of reality. They rely on the continuity of the major world powers for a base of operation from which to function, but need the chaos of the third world as a source of income. PMC’s operate in an environment similar to Wall Street. They need the stability and consistency of mainstream business to maintain professional relationships so contracts can be procured and fees negotiated, but require the frenzy, speculation and quest for power that only a free market can provide. Without one, the other cannot exist.

The Best Kind of War, (if in fact they exist), are those that are quick, brutal and decisive. The Best Kind of War addresses an immediate threat that leaves no doubt who the enemy is, what their objectives are, and what it will take to defeat them. The best kind of war strikes the enemy with the brutality of overwhelming firepower thus leaving them weak, confused, disorganized and vulnerable. The Best Kind of War is decisive with no doubt about the outcome, or who the victor is.

This war won’t be like Vietnam, which was a war of ideology, or World War Two, which was a war of conquest and genocide. This war will be a long war against global terrorism and radical Islam that represent a new evolution in warfare and transcends the traditional. This is a war where conventional forces participate directly with civilians, and engage the enemy not on a battlefield with fixed fortifications and large standing armies, but one that encompasses an endless yet indefinable front. Historians have often described the last century as Pax Americana or the American Century. They may well define the next century as the age of Professional Military Corporation.