Women and the Audie Murphy Model

It’s disingenuous to cite Audie Murphy’s extremely unique combat awards and ignore the physical standards he met and performed under especially when simultaneously making the case for strength maybe not being as important in the discussion of women in the Infantry. One would expect a civilian with no military experience and an agenda to make this argument. It’s appalling coming from a senior Army officer.

Instead of asking, “What traits did Audie Murphy possess that we are not assessing in today’s soldiers?” How about looking at items that were assessed and some things that Audie Murphy did in combat? One will find MANY similarities to the current combat environment with the same lessons.

Read the article comment section for my explanation of WWII PT test standards, combat load and some specific examples of the physical tasks Audie Murphy performed while earning the DSC and MOH.

COL Haring should have never used Audie Murphy’s singular accomplishments as justification for women in the Infantry without addressing the totality of his experience. The Vietnamese infantry comparison is just as bad. He carried no where near the load of the US Infantryman and I don't think we want to repeat his record of losing every major engagement. This isn't a thoughtful article. It's a cheap parlor trick.

The combat role of infantry is to close with and kill or capture the enemy, period. The PC absurdity about other things being important in an infantryman than being mean, tough, durable and bent on killing the enemy is irritating in the extreme, not only because it so boldly ignores common sense but because it suggests increasing the dangers of battle for men and women alike with such insouciance.

One cannot on the one hand accept what socialists and psychologist tell us about how women are socialized differently and what biologists and physicians say about how women are physically different and also accept that women will perform appropriately in combat arms, especially the infantry. The same goes for SOF units who have to take on arduous, physically demanding tasks in killing or capturing the enemy.

Perhaps our politicians and even some of our military leaders have gotten too used to the conditions of the last decade where logistical and medical support have generally been superior and days in continuous combat have been limited. That will not always be the case. Have we forgotten Korea or WWII when infantry and armor units could be in the field for weeks at a time constantly on the drive against the enemy? Soldiers without a bath, shave, or change of clothes for weeks at a time? Female soldiers have menstrual periods on top that, and if you think just the hygiene of that isn't something to consider, let alone the psychology, then you haven't thought this through. I know that sounds like a convenient male canard and I know it isn't something the politically correct can comfortably talke about (making the comment sound like a cheap shot), but it is true. The bottom line is that there is no way that female soldiers should be in the ground forces' combat arms. Let'em fight from airplanes or bang away from boats where they can meet the existing standards, but don't lower the standards for ground combat forces just to satisfy a political whim.

This is madness. "Another problem with our current emphasis on physical strength is that it celebrates the use of violence at the expense of other methods of gaining power and influence."

BLUF: Combat Arms, especially infantry, is about KILLING people. That is our primary mission focus. It's not handing out MRE's, drinking chai with the village elders or conducting SHARP training. The mission of the infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to defeat or capture him, or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack. That means KILLING. We are practicioners of applied violence.

This is PC insanity at is best.