Margie Kieper has the latest on Tropical Cyclone Gonu, which is skirting the coast of Oman as a Category 1 storm. Thank goodness for the weakening — but this is still the first hurricane-strength cyclone to directly impact Oman since records have been kept.

It’s now expected to head toward the coast of Iran. I blame Bush.

P.S. The Oil Drum looks at the possible energy implications.

In today’s L.A. Times, Mickey Kaus compares Bush’s immigration gambit with his Iraq gambit, and finds a number of discouraging similarities. Hmm.

Tropical Cyclone Gonu has mercifully weakened, though it retains major-hurricane status as a Cat. 3 with maximum sustained winds of 120 mph. The official forecast calls for it to remain just offshore of Oman as a Cat. 2 tonight (Eastern time), then make landfall in southeastern Iran as a Cat. 1 tomorrow night (again, Eastern time). Margie Kieper and Dr. Jeff Masters, the Weather Channel Blog, Weather Matrix and The Oil Drum have more.

The first recorded Category Five storm in the Arabian Sea, Tropical Cyclone Gonu, is barreling toward Oman and the Persian Gulf region. Check out the satellite views:

According to this tracking map, it’s expected to reach the coast of Oman late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, Eastern time. (Hat tip: Andrew Leyden.) So it looks like there will soon be more than one “surge” happening the Middle East.

What’s worse, Oman may not know what hit it: according to Global Surf News, “While tropical storms have hit Oman in the past, they are rare, and there is no record of a hurricane-strength cyclone striking the country. The last tropical storm to smack the nation was in June 1996.” Hopefully Gonu weakens a bit before making landfall!

There could be economic impacts, too. Dr. Jeff Masters writes, “Gonu is the strongest storm ever seen in the Arabian Sea, and could cause big trouble for the Persian Gulf oil rigs and tankers.”

Speaking of Dr. Masters, he’s jumped on the anti-Barry bandwagon — and I’m not talking about Barry Bonds, but rather the dearly departed Tropical Storm Barry, which formed on Friday (the opening day of hurricane season), soaked Florida, then winked out of official existence after a mere 24 hours. Masters writes, “Was Barry really a tropical storm? I think it should have been named ‘Subtropical Storm Barry’, and I hope NHC looks at the storm carefully to consider redesignating it after the season is over.” Margie Kieper is more emphatic:

Putting aside the unwelcome hype and “cry wolf” potential, maybe it’s best to just remember the ROFL moments associated with this chapter of the Atlantic 2007 hurricane season: that initial just-home-from-work oh-they-didn’t! moment when seeing the word “Barry” in the inbox (after which I generated a blog entry in record time — five minutes — then got on the phone with the equally-unbelieving Steve Gregory, where we hypered each other into a frenzy)…the comment by NWSFO Miami in their local discussion when Barry was named by NHC…the inability to provide Dvorak intensity estimates because there was nothing there except a LLCC (ok — that was hysterical — when has “shear” ever prevented Dvorak analysis, or, in the case of a subtropical cyclone, H-P technique)…just pick your favorite. Maybe NHC will quietly change it to subtropical in the post-season analysis.

Just to clarify, my take on Barry was that it tried to become tropical — obs showed that, although they also showed the extratropical nature of the disturbance — but there wasn’t persistent convection near the center, so it never developed, and did not fit the NHC definition of a TC. …

[I]s the situation with the generate-fear-and-hype media so out of control, that Barry was named, rather than risk some kind of media backlash, because no one believes that Florida residents can handle some minor coastal flooding, significant rain, and 25 mph winds, without framing it as a tropical storm? Or is it that no one thought they would prepare adequately unless it was called a tropical storm? Too bad for those who really did think they experienced one, because those folks will be caught unprepared when the genuine article shows up.

Alan Sullivan agrees: “[T]his was a marginal call for designation, following the even more marginal call last month. NHC has turned into a bunch of drama queens. There was a hybrid storm in the Gulf on day one of the official season, and it just had to get a name.”

LATER UPDATES ON GONU: here, here, here and here.

According to the New York Times, an internal military assessment concludes that so far, the “surge” isn’t going too well:

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad. …

The operation “is at a difficult point right now, to be sure,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.

In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly. …

When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer, so the emphasis could shift into restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods as the summer progressed.

“We were way too optimistic,” said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan.

Anti-war, paleo-conservative blogger Daniel Larison says this is yet another example of the dangers of optimism:

Frankly, Americans are suffering from an overdose of confidence-boosters. They could stand some plain, matter-of-fact talk right about now. Support for the war would have bled away at a slower rate had the administration and military been more cautious in their pronouncements of progress and much less optimistic about the time it would take to get things done. Of course, the truth would be unpopular, but inflating everyone’s hopes and then having them disappointed exacerbates the problem of an already unpopular war. Having heard from the usual suspects that violence was waning, Sadr was on the run and so on, the public will take the relative lack of substantial progress in securing all of Baghdad that much worse than it would have done had those in authority talked down the “surge.” Perhaps it is inimical to a military ethos to do this, but with this administration it seems like the safe advice for managing expectations is “aim low.”

Indeed.

Just a question, but knowing what you know now, how would you vote on the floor of the Senate on a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq? That is to say if you could have a complete do over on the subject based on the information you have now would you pick a different path? Various debates and arguments in the press, online etc. have, for some reason, made me curious as to how people would answer such a question.

144 of the 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, including Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds have signed a petition that would require setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq. The petition is being currently being drafted into a bill. The petition allegedly mirrors similar efforts by Democratic lawmakers here in the U.S.

Petition sponsors say that the withdrawal timetable would need to be accompanied by a build up of Iraqi security forces, although nothing has so far been said as to what benchmarks will be used for measuring their readiness.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki both oppose setting a timetable for withdrawl.

Middle East Conflict Intensifies As Blah Blah Blah, Etc. Etc.

Barack Obama says “Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low” because Giuliani made the following remarks about the war on terrorism:

If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it. …

[America will ultimately win the war on terror no matter which party wins the presidency.] But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer.

I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense. …

The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.

Obama’s response? “America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure.”

Oh, good f***ing grief.

Okay, look. As I made clear on Monday, I don’t approve of attacking politicians’ patriotism or saying they “don’t support the troops” because of honest policy disagreements. But this is different. Will someone please point me to where exactly Giuliani questioned anyone’s patriotism?

It seems to me, Giuliani is expressing an honest opinion about policy, not calling the Democrats unpatriotic or claiming they disagree with the war’s “shared purpose.” He’s talking about method, not purpose. He is simply saying that he believes Republican policies (and in particular, his policies) will keep us safer against terrorists than Democratic policies will. How is that objectionable? I mean, it might be wrong as a substantive matter, but how can the topic itself be off-limits for discussion?!?

Democrats routinely say that President Bush’s policies have “made America less safe.” Obama himself said it in the same breath that he was condemning Giuliani (”policies that have made us less secure”), and Hillary Clinton made a similar statement in her response to Rudy: “The plain truth is that this Administration has done too little to protect our ports, make our mass transit safer, and protect our cities. They have isolated us in the world and have let Al Qaeda regroup. The next President is going to be left with these problems and will have to do what it takes to make us safer.”

Whether or not these opinions are correct, they’re certainly legitimate ones, well within the realm of acceptable political discourse, right? Well, if Bush’s policies have made America unsafe, it follows logically that maintaining Bush’s policies will continue to make America unsafe. In other words, the Democrats are saying that electing a Republican will make America less safe. For the love all that is holy, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT from a Republican arguing that electing a Democrat will make America less safe???

The Democrats have every right to argue that the Republicans have made America unsafe and vulnerable with their ineffective policies, whereas the Dems will adopt a new course that will make us safer and stronger. And the Republicans have every right to argue the contrary position. In fact, it is essential that we have precisely this argument! Both sides need to make the case to the American people, “we have the proper strategy for this war; we will keep you safe.” If we don’t have that discussion, how can the electorate possibly make an informed choice?

This reflexive tendency to play the victim card — “how dare you question our patriotism! how dare you call us weak! how dare you talk about things that involve ‘fear’!” — is one of the major things that has driven me away from the Democrats in recent years. As a rhetorical tactic, it’s dishonest and hypocritical. More importantly, it distracts us from a very, very important discussion about the future of our country and the direction of this war. It’s also a strategic disaster, because it muddies the waters and deadens the outrage when the Republicans commit real rhetorical sins, like claiming that honest statements of principled opposition to the “surge” are somehow unpatriotic or off-limits. The Democrats are the Party That Cried Wolf in this regard: they scream “patriotism!” or “politics of fear!” so often that people are less likely to pay attention when they have a real point, and thus the Republicans can actually get away with more. Obama’s reaction is Karl Rove’s wet dream. All the moreso because an awful lot of voters agree with Giuliani on this point, and the Democrats are never going to change their minds simply by saying, “How dare you think that!!!”

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats need to wake up and realize they cannot declare their foreign policy ideas off-limits to criticism. These are legitimate questions Giuliani is driving at, and Obama & co. need to answer them, not disingenuously deflect them. If Obama thinks Giuliani is wrong to characterize the Dems’ position on Iraq as “waving the white flag,” he needs to explain why that’s wrong, and what exactly the Dems’ position is. If Obama thinks the elimination of the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance and so forth will be costless in the war on terror, he needs to explain why and how that can be the case. Or, if he acknowledges that there are costs, but he believes the benefits are worth the costs, he needs to explain that and to delineate the costs and benefits — in other words, he needs to justify his position. If Obama disagrees with Giuliani’s assertion that “the Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us,” then he needs to outline an anti-terror strategy which demonstrates that he does, in fact, understand the war’s nature and scope. Simply put, he needs to rebut the substance of Giuliani’s remarks, not simply accuse Giuliani of “playing the politics of fear” and “questioning his patriotism” when Giuliani is doing nothing of the sort.

UPDATE: It’s easy to see why the Irrational Far Left hates The New Republic with a passion only rivaled by their hatred for Joe Lieberman. TNR has writers who actually understand basic common-sense ideas like this one. Isaac Chotiner quotes Obama’s description of Bush’s “failed policies that have made us less secure” and writes:

It’s almost as if Obama is saying America would be safer without Republican policies!

Terrorism is an important issue, and politicians can and should be arguing about which/whose strategies will keep America more secure. Every time Republicans mention how much more they “get” terrorism than the Democrats, well, they may be wrong, but they are by no means out of bounds. Democrats have been saying for a good four years now that Iraq has made America less safe. This is the debate we should be having.

Exactly. And I literally don’t understand how anyone can not understand that. Well, any sane, rational, reasonably intelligent person, at least. There’s a reason I use so many question marks in my post above — I am utterly incredulous that anyone with any pretention to logical faculties could possibly think Obama is right about this.

I don’t blog much about Iraq these days, because I find the whole situation — both military and political — extremely depressing, and I really have nothing constructive to say because I have no idea what we should do. But let me start small, by quoting and responding to Bill Kristol’s commentary on Harry Reid’s statement that the “war is lost“:

If he believes it is lost, he has an absolute responsibility to cut off that funding and bring those troops home as soon as possible — three months, six months, maybe, not 15 months, which is the appropriations bill that he just supported with this gradual withdrawal.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.) On the one hand, Kristol’s got a good point, logically speaking. On the other hand, if Reid actually exercised that “absolute responsibility” and called for an immediate or near-immediate “precipitous withdrawal,” Republicans would accuse him of “not supporting the troops” (not that they aren’t already doing that, but the accusations would be even louder and angrier), and Kristol would be first in line to back them up. Which raises the question of whether Kristol and his ilk have an “absolute responsibility,” or any responsibility at all, to be honest and consistent in their commentary on such an important issue. If so, they’re failing miserably.

The Republicans have very consciously fashioned their rhetoric and their actions in order to put Democrats between a rock and a hard place, and as a side effect, have made honest debate impossible. Honest negative assessments of the war effort, without legislative action to back them up, are regarded as inherently off-limits and borderline unpatriotic — but legislative action to back up such remarks is considered even worse. So Democrats are left with no choice but to either a) support Bush’s surge, or b) be accused to “not supporting the troops.” Which isn’t to say that the Democrats aren’t equally calculating in their framing of the issue, or that their negative assessments are always honest; on the contrary, both sides are utterly shameless in their politicization of the war. (To read a critical response to Reid’s statement that doesn’t fall back on “how dare you stab our troops in the back” type rhetoric, check out what Joe Lieberman said. He might or might not be right, but at least he’s being honest, as always.)

I have no idea what the right answers are, I just know we’ll never find them by asking the wrong questions, which is what both sides are doing. Ross Douthat, at least, is asking a reasonable question of the unreasonable questioners:

Here’s my question: Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war? I don’t mean to be flip, and I say this as someone who generally thinks that the U.S. hasn’t necessarily lost in Iraq; we probably have, but the outcome is still sufficiently in doubt and the stakes sufficiently high that I want to give the “surge,” however ineffectual it may prove (or may already be proving), at least a Tom Friedmanesque six months to work. But even allowing that Reid shouldn’t have said what he said, it’s still the case that the United States can lose wars, like any world power; that we may well lose this one (in some sense, at least); and that at some point, in this struggle or another, some American politician will say “we’ve lost the war” and be entirely correct. Given this reality, I wish Levin (and many of his fellow “till the last dog dies” Iraq War backers) would clarify whether there’s any situation in which they would greet a U.S. defeat abroad with any response save a rote invocation of the stab-in-the-back narrative.

(Hat tip: The Moderate Voice.) More thoughts after the jump.

(more…)

John McCain says critics of his “Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran” quip — which may have been based on an antiwar Internet video that “went viral” last year — should “lighten up and get a life.” (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Tish Durkin’s blog post, “Iraq: A Place of Ambivalence,” has to be one of the most worthwhile things that’s ever appeared on the Huffington Post. (Hat tip: Kaus.)

I won’t excerpt it, lest I prejudice anyone for or against it. I’ll just urge you to read the whole thing.

Who says the troops need body armor? They’ve got iPods to protect them! (Hat tip: Becky.)

(Actually, the soldier did have body armor on, but the iPod in his chest pocket was “enough to slow down the bullet to not pierce entirely through the body armor.” So I guess this means you can’t accuse Apple of not supporting the troops!)

P.S. Lots of people have offered to replace the iPod for free.

The Telegraph: “Relief at the freeing of the British sailors and Marines in Iran is tempered with dismay at the humiliation to which they and the country they serve have been subjected.” Read the whole thing. (Hat tip: Malkin.)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he has pardoned the 15 British sailors and marines detained last month and will set them free.

Visit CNN for the latest.