I rarely dip into the realm of fairy tales to describe politics, but sometimes trying to figure out George Bush's logic on Iraq demands it. And so today we will try to explain the current military logic on troop levels using Goldilocks' terms: "too few," "too many," or "just right."

Some facts, first. American troop levels in Iraq a little over a year ago stood at about 130,000. President Bush decided the level of violence was unacceptable and suddenly decided there were "too few" soldiers in Iraq. His answer was the "surge," which was originally supposed to be 20,000 troops, but somehow (hey presto!) turned into 30,000 because of "additional support personnel." This raised the total to somewhere around 160,000 (which was supposed to be "just right"). The "surge" troops are now rotating out of Iraq, having spent a 15-month tour of duty there. They are scheduled to be gone in July, although somehow 10,000 support troops will stay, leaving America with 140,000 troops this summer (again, which is planned to be "just right" -- even though it was "too few" before the "surge").

Got all that? OK. Now, Petraeus, from his testimony today:

I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown of the surge combat forces and that, upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions. This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit. This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.

What he's saying, in essence, is: we have to keep drawing down troops on a fixed schedule until July. At that point, we will have a "pause" and decide what to do next. But we certainly can't draw down troops at that point on any sort of fixed schedule. Because... um....

Well, I'm sorry, but that's where he loses me. Because what he is exhibiting here is a masterful display of Orwellian "doublethink." Scheduled troop withdrawals = good (until July). Scheduled troop withdrawals (after July) = not good. It's a striking contradiction, but one he was largely allowed to get away with.

Let's start with logic. I know, it hasn't exactly been Bush's strong point on Iraq, but one can still hope for a light to dawn. Bush's logic for the "surge" can be expressed as: Violence up -- send more troops in. The logic for ending the "surge" was (up until Basra exploded): Violence is now down -- "surge" troops can come home.

There's a glaring problem with this, though. The past few weeks have seen increased violence, and yet nobody has questioned whether a "pause" in withdrawing troops might not be a better idea right now (following Bush's logic), since violence seems to be creeping back up. But no, now Bush is backed into a logical corner: Violence up -- troops come home anyway. No wonder Petraeus' testimony seems so illogical.

There's a reason nobody wants to bring this up. Our Army is either (depending on who you believe) near, at, or beyond the breaking point. Soldiers are doing longer tours (15 months instead of 12), more of them (some are on their fourth duty tour in Iraq), and with less rest periods between fighting than they are supposed to. To continue the "surge" -- or even pause the withdrawal of the "surge" -- would mean extending the tours to 18 months, or sending troops back in with shorter and shorter rest periods. We just don't have the troops, in other words, under the current rules. Which is why nobody wants to bring up the prospect that we might need more troops (or at the very least, the same amount) if the violence spirals back out of control before July.

Even Petraeus admits the possibility of more violence in the near future. Again, from his testimony:

There has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi security force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security. Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible.

Fragile and reversible. OK, what do you do if it does reverse? Sadly, this question remains unanswered (for now -- I must admit I haven't read the entire transcript of the testimony yet).

Because, according to Petraeus, in July he's going to take a "pause" of at least 45 days (or maybe even 3 months, or maybe until the next president is elected), assess the situation, and then make a recommendation to Bush as to what to do next. But there are really only three possibilities, so why not address them now?

Iraq could be more violent in July. Iraq could be about the same as it is now. Or Iraq could be less violent in July. Stripped of subtleties of the relative Iraqi political progress, those are pretty much the only three situations Iraq (and Petraeus, and Bush) will face in July.

Applying the logic of the "surge;" if there's more violence, we should reverse the drawdown of the "surge" and send in a "resurgence" (call it "surge II") of more troops to calm things down. If the violence is about the same, then we should wait, or very slowly draw down more troops. If the violence is down, then we can begin withdrawing the bulk of our forces at a rate to be determined.

Now, Petraeus is not a fool, so he knows whatever happens in July is going to have political ramifications for his boss. Petraeus is supposedly "above politics" but even he knows that if he recommended, in July, that the U.S. send in another "surge" of 20,000 troops that it would pretty much guarantee a Democratic president and possibly even a Democratic filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. This would be the equivalent of Goldilocks falling asleep and getting eaten alive by the three bears. So even if logic dictates that the answer should be "send more troops in," he's just not going to say this in all likelihood.

Which leaves three possibilities: keep the same level of troops for the near future, continue drawing down troops (but at a slower rate), or declare victory and begin a major withdrawal.

Bush would be overjoyed if he could do that last one, but it's looking less and less likely as time goes on. So we can probably discount that option, too -- even though it would pull the rug out from under the Democrats in a major way ("See, you should have trusted me, we're going to get the troops out even earlier than what a Democratic president could do next year! We have WON in Iraq!"). But chances are that the situation on the ground is just not going to make that scenario possible.

Which leaves the "do nothing" approach as Goldilocks' "just right!" We will have around 130,000 to 140,000 troops in Iraq on election day in November. We will have this number (or very close to it) there no matter what the situation on the ground is -- worse, the same, or better. Nothing will interrupt the timetable of withdrawing the "surge" (even though timetables are supposed to be -- take your pick -- evil, surrender, and/or impossible) which will be completed in July.

And Bush will have succeeded in his real goal for the "surge" -- to kick the can of Iraq down the road for the next president to clean up (at his or her peril, as far as he's concerned).

Somebody wake me in November....

-- Chris Weigant