Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on cyber-warfare threats — particularly those from Russia — was a welcome moment for grownups. Frank, honest and bipartisan, the consensus from our legislators and our intelligence-community leadership was that we face multiple grave and growing dangers, but the most immediate and only existential threat comes from Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

And yes, the Russians did attack our elections with cyber-weapons and information warfare. All our intelligence agencies agree. Which is rare.

Republican or Democrat, the senators praised the patriotism and accomplishments of those who serve in our intelligence agencies. That was welcome, too, given the political fashion of the moment to denigrate our intelligence professionals while turning backflips to excuse Putin’s strategic subversion and condone the actions of an America-hating alleged rapist, Julian Assange.

What have we come to when even a former governor, interviewed on cable news, brushes off Putin’s assault on our country with the suggestion that “everybody does it.” Well, no. Not everybody pulls out all the stops to shatter the integrity of a US presidential election.

Putin’s multi-pronged attack targeted all Americans by striking the fundamental tool of our democracy, our free elections. Right or left, we all should be equally outraged — if we give a damn about our country.

Instead, we’ve heard no end of political henchmen insist we should listen to Assange (whom they previously loathed) and be quiet about Putin (whom they previously condemned) because of “all the intelligence failures” in the past.

Yet, when pressed, such critics always cite the same, sole “intelligence failure,” the weapons-of-mass-destruction call prior to the invasion of Iraq. They neglect to mention that the intelligence community was divided on that conclusion, but neoconservatives in the Bush administration pushed the WMD argument to the fore. That was a political failure.

As an intelligence-world veteran myself, I’m more likely to credit the 9/11 attack as a genuine intelligence failure, but the core problems were our unwillingness to think as big as the terrorists did and the lack of information-sharing between rival intelligence agencies. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created to address that problem, and there has been remarkable progress in intelligence-sharing.

Now the incoming administration has floated a trial balloon about reducing the power of, or even eliminating, the DNI position. Why? Because one influential adviser to the president-elect has a personal grudge against the incumbent director. Reversing our intelligence progress would thrill Putin.

What strikes those in the know is how much more capable our intelligence system is today, how really good we’ve become. When I retired two decades ago, we were primitive compared to today’s level of tech expertise and analytical depth.

Instead of cheering on partisan attacks on our nonpartisan intelligence community (the majority of intel personnel are military members or veterans, by the way), let’s take a look at what the “intel hands” have done for us lately:

Since 9/11, there hasn’t been another strategic terror attack on our homeland, despite the determination of our enemies.

Only superb intelligence work allowed us to break al Qaeda’s back and, now, to turn the tide against ISIS (elements within the intelligence community tried to warn the president about ISIS, but he didn’t want to hear it). It wasn’t President Obama who “got” bin Laden, it was great intelligence plus the Navy SEALs.

Our intel networks monitor nuke developments in North Korea and Iran — and elsewhere — to prevent strategic surprises.

In the absence of updated legislation, the intelligence agencies do their best in our daily battle with cyber-intruders. But they’re hamstrung by antiquated regulations.

Only our intelligence capabilities enable us to monitor the military, political and economic conditions of potential enemies and provide the president with timely warnings of hostile activity. There’s far more going on in the world than ever makes the news.

Don’t like intelligence because the conclusions don’t always match your worldview? Try defending our country and interests without it.

The next time a political hack derides our intelligence personnel and defends Julian Assange or Vladimir Putin, ask him or her exactly what he or she has done to protect this country — while intelligence professionals were laying their lives on the line.

Ralph Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst and a retired military intelligence officer.