Years after missions were declared to have been accomplished in Iraq, it's still difficult to get a straight answer out of the Bush administration as to when we can expect a withdrawal of troops to begin, or even what conditions would have to be in place before any sort of withdrawal was possible.

That's why, from time to time, the administration has salted the discourse with some vague promises. Some days, it's "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Other days, it's the more daunting, "Once Iraq has a sovereign government, poses no threat, and is a willing U.S. ally, everyone can come home." And then, I suppose, there's the possibility that the Rapture might happen or something.

Still, if there's been one hopeful sign, it was in General David Petraeus' testimony last year, when he indicated that the "Surge" was already such a smash hit in the world of military strategy, that a drawdown would begin sometime between April and July of this year. As it happened, that promise was mostly spin - those troops were scheduled to rotate home regardless of "progress in Iraq." But now, there's a kink: Petraeus wants the drawdown delayed until later this year. The "Pause" has replaced the "Surge," but the story is still the same - no matter how well we are said to be doing in Iraq, our troops are never going to leave. That's the takeaway from today's White House Press Briefing, starring Dana Perino, when Perino was asked why Petraeus had abruptly requested the "Pause."

MS. PERINO: ...the President is in a process of getting briefed by his senior advisors, both those that are on the ground and here at the White House, at the Defense Department and at the State Department...

But he's made -- he's not been shy about saying that we will have to make sure that the gains that have been achieved over this past year not be erased by acting too quickly in bringing troops home. Remember, all of this is conditions-based.

All of this is "conditions-based?" The long and the short of the "conditions" is this:

1. Worsening conditions require our troops to stay in Iraq.

2. Also: improving conditions require our troops to stay in Iraq.

You can see how frustrating this becomes after a while. Violence drops? The troops stay. Iraqi forces get training upgrades? The troops stay. The Iraq government makes a "bold decision" to "stand up," as Perino brags later in the briefing. The troops stay. Like Perino, I would point out that there's a pattern here - when she's asked what happened to the drawdown, she can't give a straight answer, but she can't not suggest that everything isn't a smashing success. Meanwhile, that pause grows ever more pregnant.