OPINION:
The histrionic attacks on Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard miss the mark. I know Ms. Gabbard, and the only people who should be concerned about her serving as director of national intelligence are incompetent bureaucrats used to the status quo in our intelligence community.
The real risk that exists is that a Gabbard-led national intelligence community might break the chain of failures from Pearl Harbor to the invasion of South Korea, the nuclear emergence of the Soviet Union and China, the revelation of missiles 90 miles from Florida in 1962, the many failures in Vietnam, Sept. 11, 2001 (I was in the Pentagon), misassessment of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (I was the Air Force rep to the ground commander during the invasion in 2003), to Afghanistan and Ukraine.
In 1999, I returned from an F-16 combat mission to find that our vaunted intelligence community had provided a Pentagon briefer with better-quality photos of our target than my wingman and I had for use in-flight. A Gabbard-led intelligence enterprise would not have to be great to be much better.
Ms. Gabbard’s views on Vladimir Putin and willingness to engage Syrian President Bashar Assad illustrate her sober approach to difficult realities. President Biden thought it sufficient to warn Mr. Putin and Iran: “Don’t.”
Ms. Gabbard knows that approach works only in a fantasy world. To deal effectively with any adversary, one must understand and respect — not accept — their perspectives, such as Mr. Putin’s on the NATO-Ukraine relationship. Vice President Kamala Harris said she wouldn’t “cozy up to dictators” as president.
Ms. Gabbard understands that failure to engage despots such as Mr. Assad and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un denies the U.S. the opportunity to change the course of events and prevent the escalation of any crisis.
The notion that Ms. Gabbard is merely a Trump loyalist may be the most flawed notion in the narrative. She had it made as a Democratic congresswoman in blue Hawaii. She could have spent decades in office making a positive impact from a safe place.
She did not, because her party was losing Ms. Gabbard’s trust. She ran for the Democratic nomination that Mr. Biden eventually won, and the lessons of that campaign led her to leave the party in 2022. She did not immediately flip to the other side. The Republican Party earned her trust, and President-elect Donald Trump earned her endorsement.
Those who decry Ms. Gabbard’s qualifications for the role must think that the current director’s background — degrees in physics and law, an inside-the-Beltway existence since 2003 — outweigh Ms. Gabbard’s military service, including combat deployments and time on the House Armed Services Committee. Perhaps Director Avril Haines has a long list of accomplishments that Americans don’t know about.
In combat, I figured I was wasting my time if I wasn’t shot at while attacking a target. One defends most what is valued most, and the intelligence insiders’ response to Mr. Trump’s announcement is reminiscent of Germany’s defense of the refineries at Ploesti.
They know the real threat from Ms. Gabbard is to their behemoth bureaucracy and comfortable but ineffective orthodoxies.
As director of national intelligence, Ms. Gabbard will provide clear-eyed direction to a huge bureaucracy that desperately needs it. As a member of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet, her advice will help protect the country in practical ways. She will be a great enabler of peace and strength.
In the mind of this American warrior, Ms. Gabbard isn’t just a good choice for director of national intelligence; she is the best possible leader for this challenging era. The Senate can help our country’s dedicated intelligence professionals make intelligence great, finally —by confirming her as soon as possible.
• Dan Leaf is a retired three-star Air Force general who last served on active duty as deputy commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. He later returned to public service as director of the Department of Defense’s Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. His 2017 essay “An Urgently Practical Approach to the Korean Peninsula” won the Oslo Forum’s first-ever Peacewriter Prize.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.