Apology yes, regrets no

The US Ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, has extended an apology to Pakistan over last week's air strike that killed three Pakistani soldiers. "We extend our deepest apology to Pakistan and the families of the Frontier Scouts who were killed and injured", she said Wednesday evening, adding "Pakistan's brave security forces are our allies in a war that threatens both Pakistan and the United States".
It's an open and unqualified apology as compared to the earlier, when Admiral Mullen, General David Petraeus and Nato Secretary General Rasmussen and the like, did convey their concerns, albeit grudgingly. Stopping short of making an 'apology' in their messages, they offered 'regrets', which was not acceptable to Pakistan. Certainly a better informed American official in the region, Ambassador Patterson must have realised the futility of refusing to concede the reality on the ground, in that the air strike was in blatant violation of international law and the anger it provoked was too acute to be taken lightly.
Over the week, since the air strike, about a hundred tankers with supplies for Nato forces in Afghanistan were burnt. And, more importantly, the Pak-Isaf joint investigation team has established that the air strike could have been averted. As to whether the Pakistani side has accepted the oft-repeated 'hot-pursuit' argument, is not yet known.
So the devil lies in the details, and we would know the detailed Nato stance on such across-the-border incursions only if, and when, the issue of 'hot-pursuit' is brought up for public debate. Of course, better intelligence sharing, underscored at the joint probe, would help avert such 'friendly' airspace violations and murderous 'hot-pursuit' attacks inside Pakistan. A similar incident, in June 2008, when an American aircraft attacked in "self-defence and after proper warning" the Gora Praie checkpost in Mohmand Agency, killing 11 Pakistani soldiers, had provoked Pakistan's strong reaction, both official and public. The Army Chief General Kayani then, had "personally approved" the strongly worded condemnation, and to Ms Patterson's good memory, a Pakistani student had refused a Harvard University scholarship as a protest against the air strike. A similar reaction is in the making now.
Given the vulnerability of thousands of Nato tankers that pass through Pakistan every week, the Isaf has to desist from misadventures - of all kinds including friendly fire and hot-pursuit, air space violations - to ensure their protection and safe passage. If there are any ambiguities about the nature of the co-operative anti-terrorism alliance, those should be removed, for the emerging regional security scenario tends to place Pakistan's partnership under the sharper focus of public scrutiny. As of now, possibly, the enormity of tanker losses in recent attacks may act as a catharsis and help release the heightened public anger over the air strike while the resumption of tanker traffic is considered safe.
It was not the first air strike, but we hope it will be the last. If repeated, one would conclude that the Nato forces are deliberately carrying out these incursions, vindicating a viewpoint that the United States and its allies want to shift the war theatre from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It would be a different ballgame then and a drastic review by Islamabad of its partnership would be in order. The Obama administration and the Nato high command must know that Pakistan's partnership, as an ally in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, has lost whatever little popularity it had when Pervez Musharraf joined it. Sustaining that partnership is becoming increasingly difficult for Pakistan's civil and military leadership - what to talk of adjusting to blatant incursions like last week's. We wonder why it took them that long to make the apology.