More Good news from Iraq. Courtesy of the Iraq Combined Press Information Center:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition Forces killed three terrorists and detained four suspected terrorists during a raid in Baghdad Tuesday.

Upon approaching the objective, ground forces received small arms fire. Coalition Forces returned fire killing three terrorists.

Coalition Forces continued their mission and approached the first targeted building. As they breached the building using a small explosives charge, some linen inside the room caught fire. The fire was quickly extinguished and no one was injured.

During the search of the second targeted building, Coalition Forces detained four suspected terrorists and found four machine guns, ammunition and ammo cartridges.

This and other recent operations in the region highlight the deliberate, methodical dismantlement of the al-Qaeda in Iraq network and those who contribute to its illegal actions.

I picked this up from Reuters:

Muslim leaders expressed outrage on Tuesday after six imams were removed from a commercial airline flight in Minnesota for what they said was nothing more than trying to say evening prayers.

“They were treated like terrorists … humiliated,” said Abu Hannoud, civil rights director for the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who said the men were taken off the US Airways flight in handcuffs.

Also Reporting:
Hot Air
Stop The ACLU
7.62mm Justice

He said the men were still trying to find a flight back to Phoenix where most are affiliated with a major mosque after the carrier refused them passage following the incident on Monday evening.

“We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam,” added Nihad Awad, executive director of the council, in a statement from the group’s Washington headquarters.

CAIR and the US Muslim population should be outraged. They should take immediate action to put an end to such behavior.

But of course it is not the passengers, the crew, nor the airline which should be the just target of their rage. The fact remains that Islam is the focal point for most of the world terrorist activities, and a high percentage of terrorist activities against American targets are perpetrated by Muslim men. CAIR, these Imams, and the Muslim population need to lash out at those they claim have hijacked their religion. You cannot fault the passengers and crew in this case as they are only responding to the image of Islamic terrorism which comes at them time and time again.

“They were rewarded by being treated like terrorists,” he said. “Their humiliation is really a humiliation for the entire Muslim community,” he added, and further proof that Islam phobia is a growing problem in the United States.

Why where they treated like terrorists? Was it because they belonged to a religion which condones these activities? Could it be because they are a part of a population which is known for extremism? Or it could be something they specifically did or said?

Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the airline asked airport police to remove the six men from the Minneapolis to Phoenix flight because their actions were “arousing some concerns” among both passengers and crew.

He said the men had been praying at the gate area but he did not know if they tried to pray once at their seats inside the plane.

He also said some witnesses reported the men were making anti-American statements involving the Iraq war, asked to change seats once inside the cabin, that one requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it and that in general “there was some peculiar behavior.”

That would be enough to raise my eyebrow, and I am not as sensitive as most. Only and organization, such as CAIR, with an extreme case of tunnel vision cannot see the true reason why the world is concerned about Islam and its practitioners. I applaud US Air for taking a stance that was bound to be unpopular for the sake of the security of its passengers.

It is so very good to have someone agree with you, especially when that person is highly placed and has the job of knowing what he is talking about.

You will remember in my recent posts (here and here) about Congressmen (and I use that term loosely) Rangel and his intention to introduce legislation to bring back the draft. I stated a belief that an all volunteer military is the way to go. We, as a society, believe in pride of service and that would be lost in any mandatory service program.

Well, it looks like Defense Department agrees with me.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2006 – Citing the all-volunteer force’s success, a senior Defense Department official said today that a draft would diminish the quality of U.S. forces and put more of the burden of service on the nation’s poor.

“I think the draft is opposed by anybody who has given it serious thought,” said Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy.

That, in case you missed it, would preclude Rangal who is not known for his depth of intellectual insight.

Carr said the draft is not cost-effective and would force the military to lower its standards for recruits. A Government Accountability Office report, he said, estimated that a draft would add $4 billion in annual costs to DoD. Because draftees usually spend the minimum time they possibly can in the military, the services would have to pump more money into training and would get less return on their training investments than they do with the all-volunteer force, he explained.

An interesting and certainly valid point. Democrats are not known for increasing defense spending, how would they plan to handle this issue? They have probably, to Carr’s point, not thought that far ahead.

Rangal’s main premise to date has been that the current military draws heavily on the poor, and a draft would spread the load to the middle and upper class as well. Carr says that is not the case.

“I think that it would make the military more average, and the military is considerably above average today,” Carr said. “Two-thirds of our recruits are from the top half aptitude (range), whereas an average or equitable share would be only half. Moreover, we draw disproportionately from the middle class and the upper class. The underrepresented (in the military) are the poor. A draft would only shift the burden toward the poor.”

To bad Kerry didn’t see these stats, with 2/3rd of military recruits coming from the top of the aptitude testing range, it makes Kerry’s comments (though perhaps unintentional) look even more foolish.

What about Rangel’s statements that an all volunteer military cannot work long term due to the increasing demand of the War on Terror? Carr addressed that too.

Proponents for the draft say that the military cannot make the all-volunteer force work. This belies 33 years of experience, Carr said, noting that all services continue to make the recruiting goals and the recruiters continue to draw “above-average, exceptionally well-qualified young people.”

Retention is the best it has ever been, Carr said. Under the draft, two-thirds of the military were in their first two years of service. Today, two-thirds of the men and women in the force have served at least six years.

As to whether there’s enough Army for the jobs around the world — the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters, for example, will begin its third year-long rotation to Iraq next year - Carr said making the military larger has drawbacks.

“If you have a large number of rotations, you could stand to have a larger military,” Carr acknowledged. “But, what goes up inevitably must come down. If we were to grow the military and find ourselves in a few years shrinking it, that is one thing military leaders fear, because of the bond we created with those who joined us.”

If the Army temporarily needs more people, then the president can call up the reserve components, Carr said.

If the idea is to make the active duty Army larger, then the military would find itself shedding people in the future, he said. The services are working to make the most of their current ceilings on uniformed members by converting manpower authorizations that don’t require a person in uniform to civilian positions, Carr said. This approach, he explained, puts more military people into uniquely military positions.

Proposals to reinstate the draft certainly create debate in America, Carr noted. “But the debate inevitably comes to the conclusion that America won’t have (a draft), and the military would resist it because it’s going to lower our performance,” he said. “The all-volunteer force is successful beyond the wildest expectations of its framers.”

Carr is not someone we come into contact with much, but he seems to be very sharp. His biography is impressive as well.

Carr has the right of it, and most importantly, we need to trust our military and their appointed civilian overseers on matters such as this. A draft should only pass though congress if presented and supported by the military arm of the government. Having it start there is the height of arrogance - something our new congress and Mr. Rangal in particular, seem to have in surplus.