Correlation Between Letterman and Class Discussion

How does one find a correlation between a class discussion and the David Letterman show?
Watch the David Letterman show when the night's special guest is the President of the United States.

Tonight, as I was watching President Barack Obama on late-night TV with David Letterman, I became reminiscent of a certain hearing I attended in Washington, D.C. this summer. Although this hearing focused on the United States and its current foreign policy strategies and objectives in regard to the Afghanistan war, I didn't expect to hear about the new strategy other than on the news. I certainly didn't imagine that the issue would present itself again to me in such full force: twice on the same day and, not to mention, in drastically different situations.

As an international relations major, I should have assumed that this issue of the war in Afghanistan would arise in at least one of my classes. However, in my International Decision Making class, I was taken by surprise when the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan was our primary study area of the day. Granted, we approached this topic from a variety of different angles, but nonetheless, the information was highly beneficial when using it to expound on points made by Obama in his conversation with Letterman.

Through our class assesment of government data and reports on the war in Afghanistan, we found that the goal of the Bush administration in regard to the war was simply to win and, in doing so, killing as many members of the opposition as possible. However, with an unconventional war, should conventional war methodology necessarily be used? Is killing off the enemy the most rational objective in this particular scenario? The vision of the United States' presence in Afghanistan put forward by the new administration is to protect the Afghan citizens and civilians. Although, I must wonder that through stating that the objective is the ultimate protection of Afghan citizens, can it instead be implied that the United States is looking to gain stability and legitimacy in the region? Achieving stability through the act of civilian protection is a noble ambition, but I cannot help but make such an observation when the government has been so adamantly striving to rid the region of radical extremists. We see ourselves as a having a "moral obligation" (Bush) to spread democratic values to other nations, so is U.S. protection of the citizens of Afghanistan following this moral doctrine or subtly fulfilling our own agenda?

Tonight, though Letterman spoke with the President on a vast range of issues, he ultimately landed on the subject of the war in Afghanistan. Obama made it clear that after eight years of fighting this war, the people of this country still do not have an accurate view of what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. It is, therefore, the goal of the new administration to revamp and shift our foreign policy objectives in regard to Afghanistan. Obama made it clear that until we can determine our goal and the strategies needed to achieve it, and, furthermore, accurately justify these steps, the government will refuse to employ more troops abroad. However, if this shift does take place, the president says, we will have the ultimate reward of knowing that what our troops are fighting for is actually worthy of their sacrifice.

I know that there are several frustrated American citizens that struggle with the matters of our past that were addressed again by President Obama tonight on the Letterman show. We all know Obama believes that we transfered our focus from the fight in Afghanistan much too quickly. In other words, we "took our eye off the ball" in the past, and now that ball could be coming at us faster than we realize. Fortunately, in democratic societies, we have the opportunity to change our country's political direction through new leadership, which was another point made in class today. But since one administration "took their eye off the ball," so to speak, will the victory of its successor be dependent on placing more troops back onto the Afghanistan scene? And is our leadership more effective now that the decision-makers aren't working in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks?