ìJordanian Company to Quit Iraq to Save Lives of 2 Hostages: Powell warns that those who plan to stay must ënot get weak in the knees,;î by Ian Fisher, New York Times, 28 July, p. A3.

ìKillings Drive Doctor Group To Leave Afghanistan,î by Carlotta Gall, NYT, 29 July, p. A6.

ì70 Are Killed By Car Bomber In an Iraqi City: Worst Attack in Month Since Transfer,î by Khalid Al-Ansary and Ian Fisher, NYT, 29 July, p. A1.

ìSaudis Propose Islamic Force in Iraq: Idea Pushed as War to Expedite Pullout of U.S.-Led Military Coalition,î by Robin Wright, Washington Post 29 July, p. A16.

Another sliver of connectivity bites the dust in Iraq. Since the Philippines gave into the terroristsí demands following their kidnapping of one Filipino truck driver, at least a dozen more foreigners have been similarly snatched and their companies or countries threatened with their deaths unless they leave Iraq.

Ditto for Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan. They could handle having their people killed. After all, they've been there for 24 years! What they couldn't handle was the killers getting off scot free, because that just says the lives of Westerners operating there are basically worthless to the governmentómeaning no effort really required.

Meanwhile, the plans for the opening of the national political conference on 31 July continue apace, thank God. Because when the Iraqis stop showing up for their freedom, you canít expect the foreign workers to stay on the job amidst all the death threats. The targeting of those Iraqis brave enough to work in the security forces will only get worse, I fear. On the same day 70 Iraqis are killed, the U.S. military reports four more lost in various events. Expect that sort of ratio to continue, sad to say, until the West is driven out completely and then the real purges could proceed.

Would it be better to accept ideas such as what the Saudis are offering in terms of an Islamic peacekeeping force inside Iraq? The idea seems to be that no countries bordering Iraq would participate, which carries a certain logic (especially for the Saudis!). So who would they get for this? They're talking Pakistan, Malaysia, Algeria, Bangladesh and Morocco. Right now the U.S.-led coalition has no Arab countries involved, so this would clearly be better than what we have now, but is it realistic to think that crew, even blessed by the UN, would offer much in terms of putting down an insurgency? Sounds to me suspiciously like declaring "victory," leaving the mess to others, and when it all falls apart, we're long gone. I have seen that scenario unfold before in the 1990s, yes?