FILE PHOTO: A portrait of Ashli Babbitt who was shot dead during the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, hangs on a fence on the first anniversary of the event outside the Capitol, in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 6, 2022. REUTERS/Tom Brenner/File Photo

In an article for The Bulwark published Saturday, retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling argued that granting military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt “dishonors the military.”

On Thursday, the U.S. Air Force announced it would extend military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was fatally shot during the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. This decision follows a prior denial by the Biden administration and a nearly $5 million wrongful death settlement the Trump administration reached with the Babbitt family.

Under Secretary of the Air Force Matthew Lohmeier, a Trump appointee, wrote in an August 15 letter to Babbitt’s family that, after reviewing new information, he believed the earlier determination to deny honors “was incorrect.”

READ MORE: 'Really pushing' buttons: Inside the single factor powering Trump's unwavering MAGA support

The honors typically include a ceremonial detail, the playing of Taps, and the folding and presentation of the U.S. flag — rituals intended to recognize honorable military service.

In his Saturday op‑ed, Hertling, a decorated former US Army cavalryman who served for 38 years, drew a contrast between true military sacrifice and the circumstances surrounding Babbitt's death. He recalled taking his own oath at West Point:

“It was not an oath to a man... It was to a document, our Constitution.”

"The oath we took, the monument that towered over us, the history embedded in that place—all carried a single message: Service means loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. Violation of laws and betrayal of the oath means forfeiting honor," Hertling said.

READ MORE: 'Snake-oil' federal official is 'a certified quack' — and Trump knows it: analysis

He described honoring fallen soldiers who died fulfilling that oath — sometimes in Iraq, at checkpoints, defending others. By contrast, he argued that Babbitt did not die defending the Constitution, but while attempting to overturn the peaceful transfer of power.

Honoring her in the same way as those actually upholding the oath is “obscene,” “a betrayal of the oath she once swore,” and “a desecration of the sacrifice made by so many," the former military official wrote.

The move, he asserted, is not about recognizing genuine service, but political symbolism, meant to appease a political base.

"Here’s the truth we cannot escape: If Babbitt is honored, then few things are sacred. If loyalty to the Constitution and an attempt to overthrow it are treated as equal, we lose the very meaning of service—and with it, we are closer to losing the Republic the oath was meant to protect," Hertling wrote.

READ MORE: 'Super exciting': Kellyanne Conway thrilled Trump de-woke a logo