It’s no secret that the White House is facing an inescapable logistical problem with its increased force levels in Iraq. Analysts both in and outside the Pentagon have been saying all along that there’s no way the current escalation of troops there could be maintained through next spring without totally breaking the back of the Army. During this winter’s pre-surge posturing and this summer’s heated debates on when to end it, administration officials allowed the inevitability of a force reduction by April of ‘08 to be their safety valve against demands for deadlines and timetables.

Now the White House is trying to turn that unavoidable state of non-sustainability around and use it to claim that they’re finally able to begin withdrawing troops because the war is going so well over there these days. The president intends to emphasize that in his speech to the nation tomorrow night, when he will stand up and say that he’s not bowing to political pressure by agreeing to follow Gen. Petraeus’ advice and begin cutting back troop levels to their pre-escalation levels. (Of course, he also intends to stress the dire consequences of failure in Iraq and emphasize his commitment to keeping significant numbers of troops there indefinitely, too.)

This is not an actual drawdown decision by the White House. It’s merely politicians who tell the generals what to do allowing an inevitable reduction by attrition to happen. It’s not an actual cutback in troop levels, not when all that the suggested schedule will do is return the head count to its pre-escalation of 130,000 troops by next summer. (Which is, conveniently enough, perfect timing for the 2008 election cycles coming to a head, not to mention providing the best possible way for Mr. Bush to hand off the mess he made in Iraq for his successor to clean up instead.)

Letting things happen is not the same as making things happen. Reduction by attrition is not the same as a decision to withdraw forces. Mr. Bush’s alleged acquiescence to the advice of his commanders is a canard in this context, and it does him little credit to spin things this way. The very least that the White House could do would be to actually own up to the consequences of its own actions without trying to reframe them into somebody else’s problems instead.

So let’s just call this latest move by the White House what it really is, then. It’s a political ploy, not a withdrawal plan. It’s not a change in policy on the war. It’s not a cutback, it’s a fallback. It’s not a drawdown, it’s a letdown. It’s a letdown for the troops on the ground, for the politicians in Washington, for Americans who stand against the war — and most especially, it’s yet another letdown for the poor besieged citizens of Iraq.