I first met David Petraeus in Mosul in the fall of 2003, when he was a two-star major general and I was part of a congressional delegation visiting Iraq in the aftermath of America’s quick victory over Saddam Hussein. The issue was what to do now that we had won. I realized that the situation was complex and there were no easy answers, no one-size-fits-all solution.
But if there was one place where real progress was being made, it was Mosul under Gen. Petraeus. There was stability on the ground, and local officials and leaders were forming a working governing structure. Locals had come to believe that they were essential to making post-war Mosul work.
Unfortunately, this was not the case throughout most of the rest of Iraq. By late 2006, the situation had deteriorated and our apparent goal was to be able to claim victory and withdraw before the deluge. Fortunately, President Bush rejected this premise. Instead he recalled Gen. Petraeus from his position at Fort Leavenworth and put him in command of all forces in Iraq as a four-star general. Employing his multifaceted approach that had been successful in Mosul, Petraeus’s “surge” policy soon reversed the course of the war. I recall being in Iraq in September 2007 and being amazed by the level of stability that had been achieved.
I would later have dealings with Gen. Petraeus at his Central Command headquarters located in Tampa, Fla., and when he became director of the Central Intelligence Agency and I was on the House Intelligence Committee. At each stage of his extraordinary career, I was impressed by his ability to go beyond the superficial, extrapolate the details and devise realistic, comprehensive and viable plans of attack.
I was reminded of all this just a few weeks ago when Gen. Petraeus was on Long Island to discuss his book “Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine,” which he coauthored with Andrew Roberts. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with him prior to his hour-long question and answer session with former Congressman Steve Israel.
Listening to Gen. Petraeus discuss prior military encounters and give his analyses of current struggles in Ukraine and Gaza was a vivid reminder of how much we need an adult in the room when military and diplomatic policies are being arrived at and decided — and when those policies and their rationale are explained to the American people.
My takeaway is that we are sorely missing that type of intelligent, adult leadership from our political leaders today. And I’m not saying this to be partisan. The inability to go through layers of detail and apply that level of study to how our national security will be affected by how we act (or don’t act) is a bipartisan failure.
Russia’s blatant aggression against Ukraine deserves more than the bumper-sticker slogan that protecting our southern border against illegal immigration is more important than protecting Ukraine’s border. Or that it is necessary to assist Ukraine but not necessary enough to agitate Putin. Or ignoring the effect a Russian victory would have on our strategic interests in Europe or how it might encourage Chinese aggression against Taiwan and endanger security in Asia. Likewise, those who resist taking strong action to secure our borders from illegal immigration until there is an overall, comprehensive immigration solution — which might take years, if not decades, to attain — must honestly address the enormous harm that could result during that interim period of waiting.
Similarly, it is not enough to cavalierly call for a “two-state solution” to Israel’s war in Gaza resulting from Hamas’s brutal Oct. 7 attack on innocent Israelis and an end to Israeli occupation without acknowledging that Israel withdrew from Gaza almost two decades ago. What must also be discussed is who will protect Israel from future attacks from Hamas if Israel does not remain in Gaza for some period of time. Or that Hamas and Hezbollah are agents of Iran, which is fast approaching being a nuclear power and is a growing threat to the U.S.
My concern about the weakness in our decision-making leadership is not that I might disagree with the actual decisions, but that the lack of analysis that goes into making those decisions and lack of thought given to explaining those decisions to the American electorate could well have catastrophic consequences for the United States in our vitally needed role as world leader.
America needs more adults like David Petraeus. Thank you, Gen. Petraeus, for your continued, exemplary patriotism and commitment!
Peter King was the U.S. representative of New York’s 2nd and 3rd congressional districts for 28 years, including serving as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Follow him @RepPeteKing.