Is anyone else bothered by the disturbingly high number of military casualties caused only by “accidental” causes or mechanical failures? On Feb. 23, eight members of a highly trained army regiment were killed when their helicopter crashed in the water off the coast of the Philippines. Also, later that day, a surveillance plane made an emergency landing due to problems in one of the plane’s four engines.These incidents are certainly not the first of their kind in the war on terror. The first incident took place on Oct. 19, when two servicemen died when their helicopter crashed in Pakistan. Then again, on Jan. 9, a refueling Marine aircraft crashed in Pakistan, killing seven marines.It is to be expected that an occasional accident or malfunction will occur during any war, resulting in possible casualties. However, when aircraft crashes are reported on a weekly basis, I have a tendency to wonder whether something is wrong within our military. Since the war on terror started, there have been more than twenty-five members of our military killed in such accidents, both abroad and over domestic soil.Because I have the utmost confidence in our military’s ability to train its pilots properly and thoroughly, I have absolutely no reason to believe that many (if any) of these crashes were the result of anything other than mechanical failure and faulty equipment. But who is to blame for these failures?It is certainly no secret that our most recent beloved former president had a particular disdain for the armed forces of this country. Indeed, the radical anti-military views of Bill Clinton’s youth seemed to carry over to the actions of his presidential administration. Upon entering office, President Clinton cut military spending from 20 percent of the total budget to 15 percent. He also cut our Navy in half (from 600 ships to 300).For eight years, the military struggled under such a tight budget. Indeed, our military came dangerously close to running out of bombs during the situation in Kosovo in 1999. The damage done to our military by the Clinton administration will still take some time to be repaired. In the meantime, our military has done an excellent job in the war in Afghanistan, despite the damage caused by the White House during the Clinton years. However, with these recent accidents, we could be feeling the aftereffects of these spending cuts.We may never know the specifics of how the military adjusted to the Clinton budget. But we cannot rule out the possibility that substandard parts or equipment were purchased by our military at discount prices. Therefore, we also cannot rule out the possibility that these crashes were caused by the low quality of parts and equipment on the aircraft.Is Bill Clinton responsible, at least indirectly, for the recent series of military aircraft tragedies? Although many of my left-wing colleagues at Loyola would love to crucify me for saying so (I can almost hear some of you writhing in your seat as you read this), I believe his cuts in military spending did result in low-quality equipment, thereby putting the brave young men and women of our military in further danger.I, for one, am thankful that President Bush has proposed the biggest increase in military spending in two decades. I hope in time, we can give our military only the highest quality parts and equipment, thereby reducing the risk of such tragedies.

Ben Langford is a marketing senior