US Defense Secretary doesn't know if it was right to invade Iraq

8:34pm

If you want an idea of how far the Iraq debate has shifted since 2003 consider this exchange between David Brooks, The New York Times columnist, and Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defence appointed by President Bush in late 2006 after he finally got rid of Donald Rumsfeld:

“I don’t think you invade Iraq to bring liberty. You do it to eliminate an unstable regime and because sanctions are breaking down and you get liberty as a byproduct,” [Gates] continued. I asked him whether invading Iraq was a good idea, knowing what we know now. He looked at me for a bit and said, “I don’t know.”

This is an interesting shift as it used to be an article of faith for the Bush administration that it would do it all over again. It is obviously easier for Gates, who wasn’t present when the decision to go in was taken, to admit that he is now not certain that it was the right thing to do than it is for other members of the Bush national security team. But it is also smart politics as it helps move the argument on from the whole question of whether or not the right decision was made in 2003 and instead focuses it on the far more immediate issue of what is the best way forward from here.