Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue here is she used her unsecure cellphone and presumably "private" email server to approve these strikes in which case it might have caused operational information to leak. This isn't about someone using a cellphone or a laptop, this is about someone using any communication device that wasn't clear for the transmission of classified information to approve strikes which i would only presume to be class…
It leaves the impression of a quick and weakly informed decision (especially so in the context of executing people). I personally would never respond to an important inquiry on mobile because the relatively limited screen and input interface (e.g. auto-correct) would make me anxious that I am missing some crucial piece of information.
Allot of people are involved in the decision making, various heads of agencies, the joint chiefs, cabinet members, the president, the vice president, members of congress, the speaker of the house etc. all can be involved depending on the strike.
You also have variables that can change for example a large than expected number of non-combatants or an unexpected high value target and when those parameters change the mission planners and operators usually have to refer up to notify people like the Secretary of State and have them make a decision to proceed, abort, change mission parameters (e.g. from survey to kill, or from kill to capture) etc.
Like it or not from all aspects these aren't decisions that can be open to lengthy debate this isn't how combat works, and having to make a time sensitive decision is something that people at those levels of government and the military have to do all the time. So sorry I don't see how the fact that a cellphone has been used is some how makes it look worse than what it already is, it's just a tool like anything else.