GovernmentExecutive.com

Convenience should not be the determining factor in deciding how soldiers KIA are memorialized. The death in combat of a parent, spouse, child, loved one or best friend is the most heart wrenching experience these families will ever experience. These individuals who have suffered this life changing tragedy are owed a public memorial on an individual basis for their loved ones who have fought and died so that we may live free. Brig. Gen. William Troy wants to trivialize these events as though they were akin to the opening of a shoe annex at the PX. The simple truth is the General is wrong. General officers occupy unique positions in our armed forces in that they enforce regulations that they (the general officers) no longer have to adhere to. The other problem is that with very few exceptions there are no general officers with any live fire combat experience. This disconnect between the most senior uniformed leadership and the soldiers on the ground is enormous. The axiom that you know the shooting is over once the generals motorcade rolls up is true. This final act of communal remembrance is a solemn and sacred event that should transcend one misguided general on his way to his second star.

Whatever the cost in terms of time money or inconvenience should always be paid unflinchingly out of respect to the soldiers and the soldier’s families who have given everything that matters in exchange for our security.

I don't speak fluent New York Times, but it seems to me that they're at least inadvertently confusing "memorial service" and "funeral" in this article. If a soldier were killed and his remains sent back to his hometown in Tennessee where he's buried with full military honors, I'm not entirely of the justification for insisting upon individual memorial services back at his unit's base in Washington.