After Thursday night's debate, I still don't know what Sen. John Kerry's plan is for fighting the global war on terrorism. I think a "global test" of some sort is involved. And committee meetings, aka "summits," are also a good idea.

To me, Kerry's plan appears to be reactive, not proactive, and focused on a law enforcement strategy that did nothing to prevent 9/11.

I got to thinking, what would a Sen. John Kerry from the out-of-power party in Washington be saying as he ran for president against FDR?

As a commenter in this post pointed out, nine months after Pearl Harbor we invaded Guadalcanal.

There were Japanese on Guadalcanal, but shouldn't we have been attacking Japan itself? (There was Doolittle's raid, but that was purely symbolic.)

Some on the loony left (and I do acknowledge the existence of a non-loony left) have pointed out that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi, yet we invaded Afghanistan.

The Dec. 7 attackers were Japanese, yet we invaded Guadalcanal.

Marines on Guadalcanal refered to it as Operation Shoestring, because of the lack of supplies, troops and just about everything else. Why the shortage of supplies and troops? Because of the major operation which would occur just a few months later -- Operation Torch in North Africa.

Kerry has complained that Iraq was a diversion from the real enemy -- al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Would the 1940s Kerry have complained about the invasion of North Africa being a grand diversion from our real enemy, the Japanese?

You can play this scenario out through the entirety of WWII.

I think there's little doubt that FDR would've been able to convince the American people of the need to go to Britain's aid in Europe even if Germany and Italy had not declared war on us in the days following Pearl Harbor. But let's say they had not made that war declaration and FDR started sending troops to the European Theater. Would our theoretical 1940s Kerry have seen that as a diversion from the real enemy?

What I'm trying to determine is just how does Kerry see the world? I imagine him to be like the lawman in those old light-gun arcade shoot 'em ups. As enemies and civilians pop up here and there on the screen, does Kerry recognize the bad guys? I'm not worried about him shooting the civilians -- I'm worried that he lacks the judgement to know when to pull the trigger.

Frankly, I'm a little worried that Kerry's Vietnam experience may cause him to set the bar for military action so high that another 9/11 scale attack happens before he decides to put troops in the field.