After witnessing a dinner meeting with Mitt Romney this week, the country waits anxiously to learn whether President-elect Donald Trump will nominate him for secretary of state.

This week, Trump also met with former Gen. David Petraeus, whom he praised afterward, floating his name for the same position. It is no surprise Trump was impressed with Petraeus’ knowledge of foreign affairs, given Petraeus’ experience as top Army general and commander and as director of the CIA.

Trump will have to make his own decision, but we urge him to pick Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor met with The Gazette’s editorial board when he sought the presidency in 2012 as the GOP nominee. He impressed us with a deep command of foreign policy.

Romney’s selection would be a magnanimous act of reconciliation and would deepen the sense that the president-elect is big enough to welcome a wide range of views and doesn’t harbor grudges.

There are two important reasons why Petraeus is not the most appropriate choice.

First, Trump just ran his campaign against “crooked Hillary” Clinton focusing on her offense in compromising classified information in a way strikingly similar to one for which Petraeus was actually convicted.

It is true that Petraeus’ offense was less systematic and self-serving than Clinton’s, and that unlike Clinton, he had to pay the price. But his appointment would send an awkward message about Trump’s constant jabs about Clinton’s emails, which included even threats (since renounced) to prosecute.

The second reason for not choosing Petraeus is that Trump seems likely to choose another retired general for the other of the two most important Cabinet positions, secretary of defense. He has now spoken with Gen. James Mattis and Gen. John Kelly, each of whom reportedly told Trump he should appoint the other. In fact, Trump might end up appointing both to his Cabinet, one to Defense and the other to Homeland Security.

One or two retired generals in the Cabinet would be nothing unusual, and retired military officers bring necessary experience and counsel that every president needs. But if Trump puts three into the three most important Cabinet posts, in addition to the already-named Gen. Michael Flynn as his national security adviser, his administration will be too heavy with brass. In international and national security matters, he would miss a needed element of civilian experience.

Military experience does not apply to most international situations. If Trump looks around the table at Cabinet meetings and sees nothing but retired generals, the advice he gets on such matters could be at least rather one-sided and at worst somewhat militaristic.

Romney brings an understanding of world affairs for which he was never given adequate credit in 2012. He was prescient to understand the threat Russia posed, even though all it got him was vacuous mockery from President Barack Obama and the media. Romney also is not ideologically committed to the neoconservative foreign policy ideas that Trump campaigned against.

From a political perspective, the choice of Romney would not only be reassuring but could also help Trump in his efforts to unite a party that remains divided after his victory. Bringing aboard a dedicated public servant with whom he has not always seen eye to eye, while choosing a civilian for a civilian’s job, would be regarded as wise.

The Gazette editorial board, with the Washington examiner