OP-ED: "No Rush to Escalate," by E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 5 October 2009.

We are treated to historian Robert Dallek's counsel to Obama at a recent White House gathering: "War kills off great reform movements."

I would say that war tends to constrain them, but that they die for reasons more prosaic (they cost a lot) and more complex (genuine domestic opposition directly on point) than simply that. I mean, saying WWII kills off the New Deal is awfully simplistic. And if Vietnam killed LBJ's agenda, then he still got through a tremendous amount. So did Nixon for that matter.

But FDR's global reforms, I would argue, dwarfed his domestic ones. So did Nixon's. Only LBJ had a strong domestic focus, with Vietnam as the distraction (quick: name ANY foreign policy initiatives with LBJ outside of Vietnam!).

Played correctly, Obama could perform at a Nixonian level, in terms of reshaping global relationships, and Af-Pak is a perfectly good vehicle for that--if you view in something bigger than the myopic terms of the current public debate.

My point: the true visionaries have bold reform agendas both at home and abroad. It's not an either-or choice.

We can only hope the inside debate operates at a higher level, but as a rule, I make no assumptions. The "West Wing" show had great writers; reality tends to be disappointing.