You may have missed it back on July 4 what with the fireworks and Joey Chestnut’s sixth straight victory in the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Championship, but after seven months of refusing to apologize to Pakistan for the death of 24 Pakistani troops in a fight near the Afghan border in November, Secretary of State Clinton said “sorry” on July 3.* Apparently, the Obama administration finally gave in because, among other things, with Pakistan having closed the border between Afghanistan and itself, it was costing us $100 million a month more to move supplies into Afghanistan (and start bringing other stuff out).
Personally, I have no problem with the apology (or the “sorry” or whatever it was). What happened in November was a terrible mistake. Maybe Pakistan was partly at fault, too, but it wasn’t totally their fault. And besides, 24 people died because of the mistake. It would have been no big deal to say “sorry” – if we had done it right away.
But the Pentagon objected. Even now, some White House advisers didn’t want the U.S. to use the word “apologize” because some Republicans would criticize President Obama.* And, who knows, maybe some of it was just Barack Obama not liking to apologize for things he did, as opposed to apologizing for what other presidents have done.
As I said, it wouldn’t have been a big deal to say sorry, if we had done it right away. But by refusing to apologize time after time and then finally giving in after seven months, we look weak. It looks like Pakistan, or anybody else, can push us around, and we’ll give in, if the price of standing our ground costs too much money or is too big of a hassle.
No, it wasn’t the apology, or the “sorry” or whichever it was, that bothered me. It was the incompetence of the way it was done.
---------
* Adam Entous and Tom Wright, “At Barbecue, Signs of a U.A. Apology,” The Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2012.
Comments