James Joyner points out a couple of articles reporting that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office has been using a signature machine to sign letters to the families of service members lost in action in Iraq.
The controversy arose when soldier-turned-writer David H. Hackworth penned a column on Nov. 22 reporting that two Pentagon-based colonels told him that Rumsfeld "has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself."
It's no secret that Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to reshape the military over the past four years has angered many senior officers, especially in the Army. Retired Colonel Hackworth has been on a campaign against the Bush Administration's military policy for some time now. But this whole thing is just...well, petty.
Sure, if my Marine son were killed as a result of hostile action, it'd be nice to know that the Secretary of Defense stopped long enough during his busy day to think about my son, his sacrifice and our loss. But come on, this is just silly. My loss would be so severe that whether or not Donald Rumsfeld personally signed his letter of condolence would be of absolutely zero consequence.
To the two active duty and one retired colonels involved in this story, I say, "grow up." You're acting like little children. My respect for military officers, as a class, is about as low as it can get, anyway. Even so, these three babies have driven that opinion even lower.
And for my friends and acquaintances who are or were officers, I acknowledge that there are many exceptions to the above rule, but as a percentage, you exceptions are a very small portion of the total population in my experience.
