White House changes metric of US support

When it comes to measuring support for the US abroad, the Bush administration keeps selecting different metrics.

Back in 2003, the White House was caught exaggerating the size of the coalition that overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq by including tiny countries that were not active military contributors:

The administration asserts that 44 nations are part of the coalition. But officials reach that number by lumping nations providing military units or logistical assistance with an eclectic group of nations -- such as Afghanistan, Eritrea, Honduras, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands and Uzbekistan -- that are only voicing political support.

On Meet the Press today, however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took the opposite approach, pointing to support for the US among the large populations of India and China to deemphasize the fact that the citizens of many countries do not view the US favorably (my emphasis):

MR. GREGORY: Eight years later, seven years later after that, do you think that the world views the United States as a humble nation?

SEC’Y RICE: I certainly think the United States views the—that the world views the United States as a place to be respected. All over the world, David, our values are respected; who we are, a place that you can come and come from modest circumstances to great things, that’s respected. What we’ve done hasn’t always been liked or popular. But if you look at some of the most populous places in the world—China, India—the United States is not only respected but, in fact, popular. So yes, there are some places that have had real quarrels with our policies, but, but I think the United States is very well-respected worldwide.

It's also not clear that the US is "popular" in China -- the latest Pew Global Attitudes Poll found that only 41% of Chinese have a favorable view of the US.

Comments

[Rob]

It eludes me how answering David Gregory's question about how the world views the U.S. by citing public opinion in very populous countries is "the opposite approach" from stating in 2003 the number of countries whose governments supported the U.S. action in Iraq. Is Rice to be faulted for giving a responsive answer to Gregory's question?

Sure, Rice tried to put a positive spin on the answer. Quel surprise! Do we expect the Obama Administration not to engage in similar spin putting the best possible face on the way the U.S. is viewed in the world?

An interesting footnote about the Pew poll is that it found that favorability ratings of the U.S. dropped between the beginning of the decade and spring 2002, which as you'll recall was months before the U.S. went to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq and a year before the invasion of Iraq. It would appear that the invasion of Afghanistan, which even Democrats seem to have fully supported, was the reason for the decline in favorability ratings. So much for passing the global test.

At first glance I thought Brendan's headline referred to White House support of the metric system. Say what you will about the Bush Administration, at least they've kept us on inches and gallons.

[Sam Thornton]

I'm having trouble recalling any public statement by Secretary Rice that made the least sense. Can someone help me, please?

[David]

Great comment, Rob. It appears that the title for Brendan's post should have been Media Changes Metric of US Support. Presumably the media have changed their line of attack because of our success in Iraq. We wouldn't have been acting badly to overthrow Saddam "unilaterally", even if we had really done so.

Incidentally, I don't favor measuring a President's success by the level of popularity abroad. There are a lot more important aspects to evaluating a foreign policy.