General Petraeus has command responsibility to speak out on what contributes to peace in the region of his command before war breaks out. If he is aware of issues contributing to the possibility of war, he should make his voice heard through his chain of command before war results. I would prefer to see military leaders support the peace process than to be silent when the result may be war. Israel, under Netanyahu's leadership, is fomenting conflict throughout the Middle East by moving forward with new settlements on disputed territory. It is doing this in a way that is insulting to the United States and to high-level US officials, as well as to the Palestinians. I see it as a positive to have a US military commander speak out for peace and a settlement to the longest standing and most dangerous of all global conflicts. US policy makers need to stop kowtowing to men like Netanyahu, who do not respect the peace process and provoke further violence and war.

No one should be surprised that General David Petraeus has once again overstepped the traditional boundaries to which American military professionals should adhere. After all this is a general who waded into the 2004 presidential election by writing an op-ed in the Washington Post in late September of that year, in which he echoed the false claims of the Bush administration about the progress we were making in Iraq in general, and in his training command in particular. Petraeus also undermined his predecessor as CENTCOM Commander, Admiral William Fallon, by using his mentor, retired Army General Jack Keane, to bypass Fallon and go directly to the White House with his requests.

General Petraeus’ arguments about the impact of the stalled Middle East peace process on American interests in the region are correct, not new, and have been amply reported by all diplomats in the region and in the State Department. His sending a team of several briefers to the Pentagon was not only unnecessary but inappropriate for a military commander. What would General Petraeus say if a diplomat in the region sent a team to the State Department to criticize our military strategy in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Moreover, if General Petraeus was concerned about the impact of the Middle East peace process, why did he not send a team to the Pentagon when the Bush administration was ignoring the peace process altogether? At least the Obama administration has appointed a special envoy to work on the process and has publicly criticized the Israeli government for its settlement policy, something the Bush administration never did.

Finally, if a military officer is concerned about the threat to U.S. interests and prestige in the region, why not focus on the invasion of Iraq, which was done under false pretenses? Nothing has been a better recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, increased the influence of Iran more, or undermined the health and capacity of the U.S. military more than that mindless, needless, senseless war.

Not since Citizen Genet has a foreigner behaved as atrociously in America as did Netanyahu at last night’s conclave of 8,000 cheering U.S. citizens -- which the media say included 300-plus congressmen and senators -- who are more loyal to Israel than the United States and want to kill their fellow citizens‘ kids in a war with Iran. The behavior of Genet and Netanyahu, I think, reflects the fact that each represents an arrogant government that rules by violence.

Still, thanks to Netanyahu Obama has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity -- dump the Israelis and the Palestinians now. The thoughts and daring of General Petraeus are worth having, but more worth having would be a clear public Obama presentation to Americans describing the Israelis’ plans for continuing to annex Palestinian land, as well as their vision for a Palestinian "state," a state that would have all of a nation-state‘s attributes except independence, sovereignty, and self-rule; that is, a Palestinian state that would be a pathetic and dependent grand duchy of Israel.

On the Palestinian side, the game is up for the geriatric secular Palestinians in Fatah and ditto for most of Hamas, except for the group’s hard-line Islamists. Israeli oppression and that inflicted by Israel's Jordanian and Egyptian lap dogs have birthed a Sunni Islamist movement in Palestine and across the Levant that will not be squashed, first because of its religious zeal, and second because the Saudis and other wealthy Arabs are funding the movement. Reinforcing this movement and hardening its zeal -- courtesy of the always less-than-bright Neocons -- are the Salafi jihadis flowing westward out of Afghanistan, through Iraq, and into the Levant.

The trick for the United States will be to get out of the mess it helped create before it blows up. Dumping the Palestinians would be relatively painless, save for some cries from aging Fatah folk; massive whining from the EU; and squeals of horror from the Democratic left and Republican right -- both eager to intervene in this religious war on Israel's side -- and the Pacifist block of Democrats and U.S. Christian/Catholic church leaders who always want Washington to intervene to give peace a chance, no matter how many American kids get killed while endless diplomatic diddling goes on.

Dumping the Israelis is harder because so many congressmen, senators, journalists, and White House staff are owned by AIPAC. In addition, the Israelis will have no qualms at striking back at us before we can dump them by provoking another war with the Palestinians or Lebanese Hizballah; by selling America’s enemies the immense amount of the best U.S. technology we have given them; or by attacking Iran and starting what, in essence, would be the clash of civilizations the late Dr. Huntington wisely warned about.

Great opportunities, however, often require the taking of great and even harrowing risks to be successfully exploited. This is one of them, and it ought to be taken before the unendable Israel-Muslim religious war -- now in the hands of violent zealots on both sides -- escalates and pushes America’s economy and national security all the way down the drain Obama already has them circling.

Poor General Petraeus: every time he burps, the mainstream media is there to analyze his diet and, more importantly, to speculate about his appetite!

He has become the "New Powell" with every Postie and People Magazine aspirant trying to analyze his clever maneuvers. Of course, many of the scribes --- like one in the New York Times --- are already speculating that he wants to be the "New Eisenhower." For these prognosticators, Petraeus's lust for power will drive him one day soon to throw his black beret into the political ring. But he'll have to soften his image. Any week now, I fully expect him to take a few weeks off to do "Dancing with the Stars." [Pity the poor dance instructor who will try to match his energy levels!]

So ... more to the point, what happened in this latest installment of "Dave Petraeus Takes Over the World." It seems that he had the incredible cheek to remind his superiors --- through channels, no less, that devious so and so! --- what everybody who has ever changed planes in Dubai knows: our relationship with Israel interferes with our ability to maximize our interests with Arab world. With an increasingly authoritarian Persian Empire on the march, tous azimuths, we should be amassing friendship points from Marakesh to Mecca, but a giant something is in the way. Our inability to move Israel (and the Palestinians) toward peace is, was, and likely will be a damper on our ability to amass political capital in the Arab world. It also provides Al Qaeda's murderous thugs some of their juciest talking points.

In his most clever delivery of this "no brainer" message, Daring Dave used up 11 lines in his 56-page testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. [It appears that Commander, Centcom has other issues on his mind, as well.] Could the MSM be blowing this all a bit out of proportion?

Was General Petraeus wrong to comment on the ill effects that the stalled (for over 10 years!) Arab-Israeli peace prospects are having in the CENTCOM AOR? I think not. A less aggressive player might have turned a blind eye and not taken this shot, but that is not the Petraeus style. He will play to the max, with chalk on his cleats. By reminding alcon of the impact of the stagnant peace process on our relationship with 22 other countries, he is contributing to the national interest, even if some referees think that he is over the line. I say: March on, Dave ... ... and can't wait to see you on "Dancing with the Stars."

I infer four things of significance from Petraeus’ public testimony and private memo.

1. This is the first time that a senior American official has stated clearly that American interests and Israeli ones can and do diverge.

2. He is obviously correct in this assessment which is widely agreed.

3. Petraeus provides incentive, and political cover, for the US to toughen its stand on the Netanyahu government.

4.. This could have been orchestrated with the White House; But probably wasn’t. It would have been a deft move for Obama to generate pressure within the U.S. for a harder line and there is no place better than the Pentagon for doing that, especially when American lives are declared to be at risk. This interpretation is highly doubtful, though, for a number of reasons. Obama runs from fights. Over the weekend, the administration in effect declared the flap with Israel a closed matter. Obama, for all his energy and brainpower, is not a good manager. We learned a few days ago that he was ‘stunned’ to discover the miserable condition of the Afghan national police - after 3 months of supposedly root-and-branch reviews in which he personally participated. And finally, Petraeus has demonstrated in the past that he is uninhibited about publicizing his own foreign policy views. Let’s recall the campaign he (along with his surrogate, Stanley McChrystal) launched to disparage alternatives to their plan for escalation in Afghanistan.

The first two points are analyzed thoroughly by Uri Avnery – the most erudite, candid, and politically insightful of Israeli affairs.

See www.avnerynews.co.il/english/index.html

News flash- the administration does not have a Middle East strategy. What it has looks a lot like a little kid throwing mud clumps at a wall to see which ones sticks.

The Iran charm offensive; the Egypt speech; the wind down in Iraq; and the latest Tel Aviv tango all appear to be disparate, ad hoc efforts that have little in common other than a hope that the Middle East will just quiet down and go away.

It appears like the White House is letting everyone take their turn in making Middle East policy.

Yo-yo strategy won't work in the Middle East
Fixating on Israeli-Palestinian relations won't work either.

Palestine is the number one excuse for doing nothing to clean up its own neighborhood.

The White House is just nuts to get bogged down in the Palestine-Israel quagmire. Even if peace broke out tomorrow, the Middle East would be a far way from breaking out into a land of milk and honey. The notion that peace would unlock all doors is just fanciful.

While all this talk about US-Israeli crisis is a bit over the top (after all the US and Israel still share vital national interests), this does look like the nadir of American Middle East foreign policy.

This is a guest comment from retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who served more than 30 years in the Army, including combat and post-combat assignments in Iraq, Bosnia and Somalia:

Gen. Eaton:

The United States has watched, since the end of the Second World War, a reduction in the impact of the State Department on U.S. foreign policy.

For different reasons, reasons that could include the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, the State Department has ceded foreign policy terrain to the Department of Defense. Now, the budget king and the single most important player in National Security and U.S. foreign policy is the Secretary of Defense. At more than a $700 billion budget, eclipsing State by a factor of 1200 percent, the Defense Department is calling the foreign policy shots for the U.S. like few War Departments have ever done on our planet. This is not the vision of our founding fathers. And it is not the vision of our armed forces or our civilian leaders. Especially our Secretary of Defense. Yet Congress, our 4th Estate, and the past and current administrations surrender the foreign policy center of gravity to those whose core competency is to fight and win the nation's wars and to secure the vital interests of the United States. And true to the instincts of our arch-competent fighting men and women, they step forward to fill the vacuum of leadership.

We have had military men like Fallon and Mullen state in the clearest terms that a military attack on Iran is mildly put, problematic.

We have had military men like Keane and Petraeus reorchestrate our foreign policy in the Mid-east regarding our policies in Iraq. Not military policies, mind you, rather diplomatic, economic and political policies.

And now, in the face of an enduring challenge of formulating a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, an American general has felt at once compelled and oddly, empowered, to step into the breach and declare that continued Israeli intransigence is counter to U.S. military interests in the Arab dominated Middle East. That a failure on the part of the Netanyahu government to aggessively engage the peace process is costing us ground in the development of Arab engagement with respect to Iraq and Iran. Finally, a U.S. military statement of fact that if the U.S. appears weak with its strongest ally, and that perception is alive and well in Arab states that value the strong actor, then we are less likely to advance our message and interests in the region.

If Israel is not paying attention to our civilian leaders, perhaps it should pay attention to the most respected institution in America: our armed forces.

I look forward to seeing our president re-energize his State Department and to once again assign to the Department of Defense the primary mission of fighting and winning our nation's wars - current and future. And it is the future that really worries me.

General Dave Petraeus clearly did not leak his legitimate private national security advice to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. Those in Washington who support these viewpoints back-channeled his recommendations to the media to add leverage to their policy point of view. Petraeus is clearly the most innovative and experienced strategic military thinker we have had in two generations. He is brilliant, has a sense of military power, and has the trust and respect of the many communities he is tasked to understand and influence in the CENTCOM arena of operations.

There is little doubt in my view that Petraeus is correct in the notion that sorting out the Palestinian problem is crucial to America's challenges in the Arab world. No one in any administration has succeeded in seriously lowering the historically hateful political temperature in the region.

The Palestinians legitimately see themselves as victims of the Israelis who have stolen their land; besieged and beggared them in the pockets of Gaza and the West Bank; and used firepower, technology, and arrogance to smash their attempts to break out of the box in which they are trapped.

The Israelis see themselves as facing a Palestinian movement that is callously exploited by the larger Arab community to confront the powerful Israeli Defence Forces. They also see a Palestinian culture that raises their children to hate and wish to destroy the Jewish state. Finally they are correct that the Palestinian leadership has been corrupt, ineffective at governing, and negotiates in bad faith.

The Israelis would be led to slaughter if they ever trusted their security over the long run to outside powers, to include the U.S. ---or to international agreements. The IDF must have the unmistaken power and will to protect the Jewish state from a hostile encircling Arab world.

In my view U.S. policy needs to stop pushing a peace process based on Oslo. We should consider an adequately resourced and serious international effort at economic and political development of the Palestinian rump state---it is now a cesspool of despair and anger. The Palestinians need a port, an international airfield, a secure land route across Israel, electrical power, roads, clean water, a medical system, passports, an education system, a police force with international influence and equipment, and less--not more interface with the IDF.

The Israelis should be strongly opposed in their provocative continuing settlement of Jerusalem and the West Bank. The U.S. should also unequivocally help the IDF keep its huge technological military advantage over the surrounding Arab states--which without question are an existential threat to Israel's survival.

In my judgment, we are fortunate to have a really superb U.S. foreign and national security policy team...Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Leon Panettea at CIA, Mike Mullen as CJCS. The president can also depend on Vice President Biden's experience and enormous connections in the international community. These are serious people. They have to reach through the fog of two ongoing wars, a terrible economic recession, and allies that are unwilling to create or employ military power.

The Palestinian issue is a difficult burden, however, for our ineffective and divided U.S. political system to address, which may account for some of Petraeus’ obvious impatience with the current stalemate. We also face OPEC nations that are wielding the threat of oil policy against a U.S. economy incapable of creating a coherent fifteen year energy strategy to break our perilous vulnerability. We need energy independence based on: urban mass transit, fixing America's national rail system (high speed rail and separate line cargo movement to replace the trucking industry), investment in America's waterway transportation systems, nuclear power, electric vehicles, development of our massive domestic natural gas reserves, clean coal initiatives, reduction of wasteful energy uses, and a host of new technology programs. (solar, wind, ocean, ground thermal, etc.)

The American people, however, are worried about their jobs, their sad educational system, health care, racism, immigration, a steadily failing transportation system, and our bitter and polemical political system.