Important story by Mark Perry this morning on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel: Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, reportedly warned the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House that the Israeli-Arab conflict is endangering U.S. interests in the region.

The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow...and too late."

I'm glad the military understands that Washington's "special relationship" with Jerusalem has mostly a negative effect on American foreign policy priorities. This could explain why U.S. vice president Joe Biden told Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the conflict "is starting to get dangerous for us." (And I look forward to Abe Foxman denouncing Petraeus for "linking the Israeli-Arab conflict to America's larger Middle East challenges.")

But I question the utility of Petraeus' proposed course of action: adding Israel and Palestine to CENTCOM's area of responsibility.

Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

What would this accomplish? The Pentagon has a considerable role in Israel (joint training, military aid, intelligence-sharing, etc.), but that role is of course subordinated to civilian policy. CENTCOM "engagement" with the Israeli-Arab conflict won't do anything to change the issues that matter most to Arab governments. Petraeus can't slash military aid or order Netanyahu to stop building in East Jerusalem.

So perhaps this was purely a political gambit -- an effort to light a fire under civilian policymakers. (Perry calls the U.S. military the most powerful lobbying group in the country.) Indeed, the Obama administration decided to "redouble its efforts" on the Israeli-Arab conflict after receiving the briefing.

That's not at all an appropriate role for a general to play -- even though I agree with the arguments Petraeus made. The U.S. needs a strong counterweight to the Israel lobby, but I'm not sure it should come from the Pentagon.