When I worked for the military (as a civilian) it was TQM - Total Quality Management -- which was a Reagan-era formula for failure. The difference there is that even though it was a totally, laughably ineffective approach to improving the military infrastructure, I nor anyone else was given to ranting and railing about it and blaming Reagan himself for its failure to impact the bureaucracy. It would be pathological of me to blame Ronald Reagan himself, personally, for the failure of TQM to improve the Department of Defense, don't you think?
.
That's what Decoursey is doing. I suggest that he has been conditioned to blame Clinton personally for every single piece of minutuae related to what he didn't like about the military. He has internalized all the rightwing propaganda that and displays a pathological hatred that renders him unable to acknowledge that other factors besides Bill Clinton's personal failures might have made his time in the military unsatisfactory.
.

''The story of my life, since I became Secretary, is not that Congress is trying to cut programs out from under me, but rather that I have difficulty persuading Congress to allow me to cut anything,'' Mr. Cheney told the panel.

Furor Over Base Closings

In January, for example, Mr. Cheney touched off a furor in Congress when he announced that he was considering closing 35 of the nation's largest military installations to save money. The proposed changes came on top of 86 military bases that are being closed under orders from Congress.

The Pentagon proposed last year that several expensive weapon programs be dropped, including the Osprey and new production of the Navy's F-14 fighter plane, but intensive lobbying in Congress restored financing for the programs.

The Administration has proposed a $307 billion military budget for the fiscal year that will begin Oct. 1, next year, and is seeking ways to accommodate its goal to reduce Pentagon spending by 2 percent a year through 1997. Various House and Senate versions of next year's budget range from $289 billion to $283 billion.
//
.
.
There's a lot more where that came from, but I'll wait for Decoursey's rebuttal before I continue to debunk his unfounded assertions.

By MICHAEL R. GORDON, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 30, 1990

LEAD: Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outlined his long-term plans for reshaping the military today, proposing the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions and making new investments in costly long-range nuclear programs through the mid-1990's.

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outlined his long-term plans for reshaping the military today, proposing the elimination of five of the Army's 28 active-duty and reserve divisions and making new investments in costly long-range nuclear programs through the mid-1990's.

As a first step, Mr. Cheney said the Pentagon would cut two of the Army's 18 active divisions in the 1991 fiscal year while holding the Navy roughly constant and continuing spending on the B-2 bomber.

The Secretary said major long-term changes in the military would depend on completion of agreements with the Soviet Union to cut conventional forces in Europe and to make deep reductions in long-range nuclear forces.
//
The 1991 Budget: Armed Forces; CHENEY WOULD CUT DIVISIONS IN ARMY BUT MAINTAIN B-2 - New York Times

.
Cheney Cut Thousands of Active-Duty, Reserve, and Civilian Forces. In January 1990, Cheney banned the hiring of any new civilian personnel in the Defense Department through the end of September, which left more than 65,000 jobs vacant. Under the budget proposed in 1990, the Pentagon would have reduced active military personnel by 38,000; selected reserves would have fallen by 3,000. The budget called for the deactivation of two Army divisions. Long range, the Pentagon planned to reduce its work force by 300,000, including about 200,000 military personnel and 100,000 civilians. In 1991, he called for reduction of 200,000 active and reserve military personnel over two years. In 1992, Cheney called for cutting 500,000 active-duty people, 200,000 reservists, and 200,000 civilians over five years. [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 2/2/92; Chicago Tribune, 2/20/91; 1990 CQ Almanac, p. 672; Washington Post, 1/13/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]
.
Also
.
APACHE HELICOPTER: THE CHENEY RECORD: Terminate The Apache; According to the RNC, AH-64 Apache Helicopters Were Crucial to Operation Iraqi Freedom.In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, “This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera.” In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, “The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64…I forced the Army to make choices…So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out.” [Cheney testimony, Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, 6/12/90; Cheney Testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 7/13/89; Kerry's Military: As He Would Like It,” 7/18/03]
.
Also
.
AEGIS SHIPS: THE CHENEY RECORD: Cheney Cut Program, Costing Jobs. Cheney plan cut 9 of original 25 ships planned, putting shipyard in jeopardy [States News Service, 8/14/90; Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/24/90]

BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES: THE CHENEY RECORD: Bush-Cheney Budget Terminated The Bradley. “Major weapons killed include the Army's M-2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Navy's Trident submarine and F-14 aircraft, and the Air Force's F-16 airplane. Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons.” [Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

BLACKHAWK HELICPTERS: THE CHENEY RECORD: Terminate The Black Hawk. The Pentagon's internal budget deliberations recommended termination of the Black Hawk program under Secretary Cheney.” [Aerospace Daily, 5/15/90]
.
Also
.
Active-Duty and Reserve Forces Endured Huge Reductions Under Cheney. The LA Times reported in November 1991 that the number of active-duty military personnel had decreased by over 106,000, or 5 percent of the total forces. The National Guard and Reserves had been cut by nearly 38,000, instead of the 105,000 the Bush Administration sought. [LA Times, 11/2/91]
REPUBLICANS EMPTY SCARE TACTIC - CLAIMING ONLY DEMOCRATS CUT DEFENSE | ItsYourTimes.com

//
Preparedness: How Many Wars Can the U.S. Fight?
Monday, Mar. 04, 1991
By JESSE BIRNBAUM Time Magazine
.
In testimony before two congressional committees last week, Pentagon bosses Dick Cheney and Colin Powell defended their new multiyear budget, proposed earlier this month, which calls for a 25% cut in military personnel by 1995, a 4% reduction in spending and even the elimination of many of the weapons that have proved to be so dramatically effective in the gulf.
.
Cheney and Powell make three arguments in favor of the cutbacks: 1) the runaway federal deficit dictates smaller defense budgets, 2) the Soviet threat has declined, and 3) quality can replace quantity.
.
The key to the Pentagon's new approach will be a sharply reduced American "forward deployment" in Europe and the Pacific, backed by a strong, mobile capability stationed in the U.S. The Army would be reduced from 28 divisions to 20, supported by increased, speedier airlift and sea-lift capacity, and including a quick-reaction Contingency Force consisting of the XVIII Airborne Corps reinforced with two armored divisions. The Pentagon would also proceed with its plans to close 225 military bases around the world and to tighten its procurement policies. All told, the current force of 2.1 million active-duty personnel would be reduced about one-fourth, roughly equal to the number of troops engaged in the gulf war.
.
Oddly, Cheney also wants to phase out some of the battle equipment that the public has only begun to recognize. The M1A1 tank as well as the Bradley fighting vehicle, both hardy workhorses in the gulf, will no longer be produced. Assembly lines for the AH-64 Apache and AH-1S Cobra helicopters, so efficient in the fighting, will close; the Army wants a new heavy battle tank and a high-tech helicopter instead. The Navy will eliminate or scale back some weapons designed for battling the Soviets, including its Trident SLBM submarine program and its hunter-killer Seawolf submarine procurement, and reduce its overall carrier group strength from 13 to 12. Increased costs will almost certainly force the Air Force to cut its proposed purchase of 120 C-17 transport planes.
//
.
also
.
//
Our Overstuffed Armed Forces: Reasons to Cut More
Lawrence J. Korb
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 1995:
>
Despite their differences, President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress have agreed on two things. The first is that the federal deficit should be eliminated by slashing federal spending rather than increasing taxes; indeed, both sides want to cut taxes. They have also agreed that projected levels of defense spending will not be part of any deficit reduction package. In fact, both the administration and Congress have called for increases for defense for the rest of the decade. In 1996 and 1997 alone Congress wants to add $20 billion to what the Pentagon requested, and it has established firewalls between defense and nondefense areas of the budget so that funds cannot be shifted to cushion cuts in social programs. Under the terms of the joint budget resolution Congress adopted in June, between 1995 and 2002 domestic discretionary funding will fall from $248 billion to $218 billion while military expenditures will rise from $262 billion to $281 billion.<
//
Foreign Affairs - Our Overstuffed Armed Forces: Reasons to Cut More - Lawrence J. Korb
.
.
You know, if you are going to rail against someone, at least have your facts right.