Since the first excuse for the invasion died, the Bush-League argument for staying has been some version of:
"Since we're there already, we have to stay until Iraq is returned to some level of stability."
Conveniently ignored in that argument is that the adminstration started out the occupation not by trying, however incompetently, to introduce stability. They began by some fairly-effective sowing of instability. And I'm not talking about the invasion itself. The control of Iraq during the first days of the invasion by the neo-con civilians from the Department of Defense was planned destabilization.
Details after the jump.
Harpers published an article long ago involving some of this.
Baghdad Year Zero, by Naomi Klein.
It's been mentioned here previously, but the conclusions weren't drawn. Anyway, it's important enough to deserve the attention of the country, much less dKos.
What Klein reveals is that Bremer and the Americans around him intended to reduce the Iraqi population to such a state of disorganization that they would welcome any organization, even a global-economy capitalist dream state. In pursuit of that program, Bremer fired all employees of the Iraq government, including army and police. He didn't close the state-owned factories, most of the employers in Iraq; but he made sure that none of them provided anything for the new government -- even cement was imported from abroad at incredible expense.
So the 1600 US troop casualties since the end of the invasion are not something which Bush is manfully bearing in his pursuit of order in Iraq. They are something he considers a cheap price for his administration's pursuit of disorder in Iraq.
The conclusions are mine, not Klein's. Read the article to see whether you agree with me on the basis of her evidence.