So it appears the standoff which led to the closing of the NATO supply line through Pakistan in November has finally been resolved. After resisting offering an apology for an incident in which a cross-border firefight led to the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has finally delivered language that would satisfy Pakistan. As she said in a statement:
“I once again reiterated our deepest regrets for the tragic incident in Salala last November. I offered our sincere condolences to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who lost their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.”
That simple statement was, of course, the subject of many months of contentious negotiations. It is hard to blame the administration for finally kowtowing, at least in a limited way, toward Pakistani sensitivities. After all, the closure of the “GLOC” (ground line of communications), even if it did not disrupt NATO operations, was costing us an extra $100 million a month to ferry goods from Central Asia. But this should not make anyone think relations with Pakistan have been restored to normal–a term tough to even apply to our bizarre relationship with this state which claims to be an ally and yet sponsors terrorist groups which regularly kill American soldiers.
Nor should this deal lead us to shy away from taking some of the tough steps–such as using drones to target Taliban and Haqqani leaders inside Pakistan–that will still arouse Pakistani ire and that could lead to a closure of the GLOC once again. If we don’t do more to strike at the insurgent leadership, we will not be able to leave even minimal stability behind in Afghanistan after 2014.
If Hillary had to grovel to get this deal, it would have been good opportunity to also secure freedom for the imprisoned Pakistani doctor (who aided us in the Bin Laden search).
Mike, people in the position of issuing a coerced apology are rarely, at the same time, able to demand freedom for another nation's citizen imprisoned by that nation. n nWhat do you think the likelihood that Pakistan could demand and secure the release of Aafia Siddiqui ?
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that last November, a U.S. air attack inadvertently killed 22? Pakistani soldiers, but that at least part of that tragedy was that Pakistan had not kept U.S. forces fully current about where Pakistani troops were and were not located.
Nevertheless, the error was tragic, and it was U.S. forces that did the killing. In Pakistan’s mixed civilian and military population, checking and double-checking to make sure that the target really is the enemy is essential.
I do not understand why the U.S. did not issue an apology — including the use of that word (along with sorry) — in November. When U.S. forces make a tragic mistake, even if Pakistan accidentally contributed to that mistake, an apology is not Kowtowing. It simply is admitting an error, with sincere regret.
Issuing an apology now simply makes it obvious that we’re not really sorry, but will say anything in order to keep our supply route through Pakistan open and to save $100 million a month. (But better late than never.)
Roger Folsom