How much is an apology worth? In U.S. -Pakistan fight, $2.1B

"We are sorry," Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said Wednesday. She's sorry for the deaths of 21 Pakistani soldiers who reportedly fired (repeatedly) at U.S./NATO troops patrolling the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, but she's surely also sorry that the political blowup - fueled by Pakistan's dissatisfaction with previous U.S. apologies - has cost the U.S. roughly $2.1 billion and further recalcitrance from a dubious ally.

Clinton's apology has helped re-open the Ground Lines of Communication, military jargon for the ground transportation routes through Pakistan that the U.S. uses to supply its forces in Afghanistan. The routes had been closed since the November border skirmish that killed the Pakistani soldiers, forcing the U.S. to rely on expensive alternatives, such as longer roads through Russia and Central Asia and more airlifts.

In a previous post, "In War, $100M A Month Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry", I talked about the absurdity of a formal apology being a sticking point in the U.S.-Pakistan negotiations. But with overall costs of re-routes exceeding $2.1 billion so far (and disrupting war funding enough that the Department of Defense asked Congress to reshuffle $8 billion in contingency funds), I guess the U.S. decided enough was enough, and that it could extend itself beyond offering "condolences," "deep regrets" and acknowledging mistakes.

Although both the State Department and Department of Defense downplayed the role of the apology in negotiations, Pakistani officials continued to publicly insistent on a more formal apology. And the apology plays prominently in Clinton's official statement today, dominating from the first paragraph.

"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.



As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect."  -- Hilary Clinton.

Pakistan's insistence on a formal apology must be maddening for the State Department and Defense Department, who must surely be thinking "but they started it!" (in terms of shots fired), at least on some gut level.  Pakistan is so focused on "respect" that they ignore their repeated failures in the complicated and dysfunctional relationship -- from its failure to police its borders for Taliban fighters to its failure to capture Osama Bin Laden (compounded by the later treason conviction for a Pakistani doctor who tried to help Americans discover his whereabouts).  At some point, Pakistan, in so many things, needs to figure out that respect needs to be earned, and insisting on it will just get you into pointless and embarrassing fights over semantics.