Homocon James Kirchick was justifiably excited to score the interview with Joe Lieberman in which the Senator confirmed that he plans to cosponsor DADT repeal legislation (go him), but keep that rocket in your pocket, Kirchick! It's unbecoming.
Adam Serwer points out Kirchick's bizarre statement that Lieberman sponsoring DADT repeal is frustrating and perplexing to liberals, and hilzoy wonders why Kirchick said it was "the most significant piece of socially progressive legislation that Congress will deal with this year." Significant, yes, but the most significant?
But this part stuck out to me in particular:
And - this is me speaking - can one think of a better way for homosexual-hating, diversity-fearing Islamofascists to bite the dust than at the hands of openly gay American Marines?
Is there any aspect of our culture that is sicker than this juvenile urge to kill people (specifically Muslims) without any regard to whether they've actually done anything against us, and to want to do so with such glee and gusto? He's talking about real human beings being sent halfway around the world to fight against other real human beings, in a conflict that has resulted in piles of dead, stinking human corpses, yet it sounds like he's recounting a video game he played or a movie he saw. Aw man, it was so awesome when Team Rainbow just blew those Islamofascist fuckers' heads off! Awwwwww yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaah! There's like blood everywhere!
Not to mention that Kirchick, for all his jouissance at the idea that gays will soon be allowed to kill Muslims, will most likely not sign up for the military service should DADT get repealed this year. He's a fairly obvious chickenhawk who will have even more fun cheering on war and violence from the comfort of the seat in front of his computer, but would never even dream of actually enlisting to be one of those "openly gay American Marines" who can kill Muslims.
I'm sure in thirty years, though, this will be a much more common line of argument. While the US is making slow and steady progress on identity issues and eliminating discrimination against groups that are able to convince everyone else that their identity is immutable, one thing that's still unquestionable in American politics are our wars and military culture. Who knows, I might even get a nasty-gram from SLDN just for writing this post. And I don't see a movement developing with any likelihood of success that will displace America's elite class's need to invade countries.
One of the key justifications for war in both Iraq and Afghanistan was the fact that we were supposedly going to improve the conditions of women in those countries. Forget the fact that the folks making that argument generally didn't much care about improving the lives of women in this country, it was a cynical attempt to convince people that there was a clear, identity politics-based reason to hate this other group of people out there, half a world away.
Kirchick's either being snide or sarcastic, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine the neocons of the future (or whatever they'll call themselves) accusing another country of being "diversity-fearing" and "homosexual-hating" as an excuse to invade them. And it'll probably work, as I'm sure there will be no shortage of peoples who will be downright despicable to gays in the future. But the irony of violent, pro-war patriarchs discussing the need to use our military to save gay people's lives will be plenty obvious to a few of us, but pointing it out will be futile. Some people just love reading about war in the newspaper.
That said, it's good that someone's going to sponsor this obvious piece of legislation. It'll be fun to listen to journalists tell us how it's great that someone with "national security bona fides," who just so happened to have been wrong about every major national security decision this country has made in the last decade, is taking up the issue of gays in the military. Because even though he was wrong, he was wrong in certain fashionable and violent ways that only increase his credibility on national security issues.