Brand Erosion Lesson for W

In my current branding course, my prof made a comment about how, in some cases, the extent to which a brand is "American" may not be restrictive in international markets, but in fact be helpful, insofar as "American" is an aspirational element.

Given that I've spent a lot of time professionally measuring odd things like brand perceptions and meanings, I had to wonder: How much have W's foreign policy and actions diminished the globe's affinity for things "American", and as a consequence, how many brands with an "American" component have been hurt, and to what extent has that brand erosion cost firms sales?

Not that this is a major argument against the war, but it demonstrates how war can have far flung economic consequences, how interconnected we all are, and how economic ties can be a force for peace. We don't want war with China because we like cheap stuff at Wal-Mart, and because the Chinese like selling us stuff. Pakistan doesn't want war with India because it'd be bad for business. When a people has an economic interest in the well being of and good relations with another people, it's hard to start a war. Not exactly an idea the anti-globalization folk seem to have grasped.