Read this book.
Posted on 12/17/2004 5:12:06 PM PST by Former Military Chick
WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will begin personally signing condolence letters sent to families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, after receiving criticism over his use of mechanical signatures.
In a statement provided to Stars and Stripes on Thursday, Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he has not personally signed the letters, but said he was responsible for writing and approving each of the 1,000-plus messages sent to the fallen soldiers’ families.
“I have directed that in the future I sign each letter,” he said in the statement.
“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss.”
In a separate statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said, “In the interest of ensuring timely contact with grieving family members, he has not individually signed each letter.”
Department of Defense officials for the past few weeks had said only that the content of the letters was private.
But several families of troops killed overseas said they were sure the notes they received had not been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld was not paying attention to their loss.
“To me it’s an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq,” Army Spc. Ivan Medina told Stripes.
“This doesn’t show our families the respect they deserve,” said Medina, a New York resident whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer.
Illinois resident Bette Sullivan, whose son John was killed in November 2003 while working as an Army mechanic in Iraq, was incensed when she, her son’s wife and her grandchildren received the exact same condolence letter with the apparently stamped signature.
“If each family receives two copies, how many signatures does that amount to?” she asked in an e-mail response to Stripes. “I can understand the use of stamped signatures for his brothers’ mementos, but for those of his wife and children and mother? No, no, no.”
Retired Army Col. David Hackworth, an author and frequent critic of the Department of Defense, publicly criticized Rumsfeld in a syndicated column earlier this month for not reviewing each KIA letter personally.
He called the fake signatures “like having it signed by a monkey.”
“Using those machines is pretty common, but it shouldn’t be in cases of those who have died in action,” he said. “How can [DOD officials] feel the emotional impact of that loss if they’re not even looking at the letters?”
Hackworth said he objected to using the stamped signatures for promotion and commendation letters as well, but said not personally handling the condolence letters is a much more serious offense.
Family members had expressed similar concerns to Stripes about President Bush’s signature on his condolence letters, but Allen Abney, spokesman for the president, said that Bush does personally sign the letters sent from the White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Rumsfeld's statement
Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on condolences to servicemembers and their loved ones, as provided to Stars and Stripes:
“It is a solemn privilege of the many of us in the Department to meet with U.S. forces and families who have experienced injury or death in the defense of our country.
“During visits with wounded forces and their families at Walter Reed Army Hospital or at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, I have drawn inspiration from the dignity and resolve of these wonderful young Americans and their loved ones.
“Over the past years, my wife, Joyce, and I have met with several hundred wounded troops and their families during visits to intensive care units, therapy facilities, and their rooms in military hospitals in the United States and abroad.
“During visits to military installations, I have met with still others during their visits to the Pentagon.
“Joyce and I also have met together and individually with spouses and children of those killed in action.
“At the earliest moment in the global war on terror, I determined that it is important that military families who have lost loved ones in hostile actions receive a letter from me directly.
“I wrote and approved the now more than 1000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action. While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter.
“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss.”
That is part of his f'n job!
Just saw it - ok.
I got flamed when I said this then and get flamed when I say it now but so be it.
And is it just me or is the way the press is reporting this makes it sound like this (auto-signed) letter is the ONLY thing these families of the fallen get?
Isn't it still policy to notify the families in person?
You'll get no flames from me today. This is indefensible, and it is time for Rumsfeld to go. How much outrage would there be emanating from Freepers if Les Aspin, William Perry, or William Cohen had pulled this during a Clinton administration?
Read this book.
The military's job was set out to go out and destroy the enemy. Not start stopping people stealing lamps and tires. I try to imagine myself as the soldier first entering Baghdad to seek out and destroy the enemy. Then I start seeing folks across the street with stolen lamps, chairs or whatever. What the F am I going to worry about stopping them when just around the next street you could have an enemy lurking around waiting to pounce on me. Sorry, I prefer the soldiers go out and destroy the real danger rather than worry about some break down in law and order for a few days.
See my post #47.
Uh, OK. I read it.
And there's no finessing (sp?) this, he could have signed those letters himself, it doesn't amount to a big expenditure of time.
I think Rumsfeld is being truthful when he says he just wanted to get the letters out to the families ASAP, but that's an explanation worth nothing. A delay of a couple of days here or there is meaningless.
That being said, there's probably many instances of tacky expediency in every war, ever fought, since the beginnning of time.
Yeah, leave it to CNN for heartless headline of the day......
My understanding is that everyone always got a letter signed with an autopen.
Monica Crowley mentioned on her radio show this am that it is standard practice to use an autopen. She mentioned that this has been done for years and is nothing new. Of course if one doesn't know it's been standard practice, it looks like Rumsfeld is "insensitive" . It's more piling on.
Media is going to take stuff out of context now and try to get the Repubs to eat their own since the Dems are out of power.
That is an outright incorrect statement. When you occupy a nation it is the responsibility of the occupying power to preserve law and order. It was just what the USA did after it occupied liberated Europe and Asia after WW2.
It is what the Army and the National Guard have done inside the USA itself.
Finally, you missed my point which is that allowing an atmosphere of looting and lawlessness to fester we allowed the Iraqis to become emboldened enough to later challenge us. Lastly, allowing such a lawless atmosphere made the Iraqis consider our forces useless when it comes to their defense from men with guns and when you have men with guns you either fight them or allow yourself to be ruled by them and that is what happened.
Monica Crowley should know because?
OK, so do YOU know if it's common practice?
I don't know for sure but I thought it was. She mentioned it was. Frank Gaffney, undersecretary of Defense under Reagan, was on and said the media was piling on. It confirmed my instincts.
If you have knowledge know that this is NOT common practice, I'd like to know.
I'm not going to jump on Rumsfeld for doing what every other Secretary of Defense has done in the past.
Again, if Rummy is wrong, I'd like to know.
You sound like the village idiot trying to use the big words and ideas he reads in a book. Before one assumes the responsibility of an occupying power, one has to have acheived the authority of an occupying power, which means having achieved the defeat and surrender of the enemy forces. Until the insurgents have been supressed we are merely a combatant in country and not an occupier.
Allow, allow, allow .... To allow means somehow that you had the writ and power to stop it and by official decree decided that looting and lawlessness are ok.
You really are nincompoop.
To which you replied That is an outright incorrect statement.
You get the prize for being the dumbest idiot on this form. Destroying the enemy is exactly what the military's job is. Until his ability and will to fight are overcome there is nothing else.
So tell us, in your own grade school words, what is your problem with how Rumsfeld is running the war. Don't stand behind some fancy book title or what someone else tells us. Come out like the whimp of a child you are, look is straight in the eye and give it your best shot, however meagre it is likely to be.
You occupy when you have boots on teh ground not when a formal surrender takes place - what bull on your part. What we waited until Germanyt folded to apply law and order? Until then Germans werelooting left and right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.