Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
But first from fox at 3 o'clock the US is saying sorry for the NATO airstrike that killed two dozen Pakistani troops last year and secretary of state Hillary Clinton says.
Both sides have acknowledged the mistakes that led to it.
At the same time she says Pakistan has agreed to re open key border crossings in Afghanistan.
Pakistan close them in retaliation for the strike effectively.
Cutting off supply routes for US and international troops based in Afghanistan.
Now an apparent break in the seven month impasse.
The chief fox report correspondent Jonathan Hunt -- -- was born and Jonathan really kind of came out of left field because the administration for months as saying it would not apologize.
What and some administration officials might argue that they haven't -- should they apologize.
-- of state Hillary Clinton used the woods sari she said we are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military she also passed on regrets.
So if you want to define that as saying.
It's an apology then yes it's an apology but it's also important to focus.
On what she said that sorry fall she said sorry.
For the Pakistani military losses she did not apparently apologize for the US actually carrying out.
An -- strike on Pakistani territory -- are important differences.
And would allow the administration to argue it perhaps that they have not apologized for the -- strike itself.
Simply for the military -- -- called.
Either way we saw the second of state spokeswoman today.
Dancing around this issue in her daily briefing with some.
The bad part parsing the statement.
I think that intent here is that we are both sorry for the losses suffered.
By both our countries in this fight against terrorists.
Think it can't hit some college.
Again a statement speaks for itself the words are all there and I'm not gonna improve on it here.
So bottom line Trace it depends what you consider the definition.
Of apology to Trace.
So whatever the meaning of these words Jonathan this appears to be a good thing to the United States absolutely no doubt about that -- this incident.
The US has been having to get those daily supplies.
In -- all of our troops in Afghanistan from the north through central Russia.
Another central Asian countries instead of bringing them across the border from -- job that has cost the united states military.
Something like 100.
-- -- Extra and would the would the moral of troops approaching it is going to be more and more important to be able to get supplies to them and get equipment out of Afghanistan.
Much more easily so this is certainly a step forward it's an important step in repairing.
That -- of one Pakistani.
US relationship which has been under so much pressure but it's just one step this is not to say.
They're all still a great deal of difference -- between pockets Don and the US but for now our troops are going to get that supplies more easily Trace.
-- -- live for us.
In the New York studio Jonathan thank you joining us now Christian white and he is a former State Department senior advisor during the administration of president George W.
He is currently a principal at DC international advisory which advises clients on geopolitical issues and Christian.
You got -- -- -- Jonathan was saying it was.
-- an apology mean.
And kind of -- Qualified apology how how important it.
Well it is important but I think it's an apology or -- non apology that shouldn't be made our own military has said that.
We were engaging Taliban forces near the Pakistani border but inside Afghanistan we were attacked first and they fired in self defense.
Pakistan says the opposite -- up to you who to trust but do you look at these supply lines into Afghanistan and nonetheless these are very important for us.
They are -- critically important although there is an alternative is Jonathan mentioned it goes through Central Asia and -- price for a fraction of the three billion dollars we hand Pakistan every year we could have built the railroad to the Caspian -- would have been better for Afghanistan's economy -- better for our war fighters especially considering how much material -- -- take out of Afghanistan once the withdrawal begins -- don't we -- -- supply lines right now.
They are important right now the question is why we would apologize why we couldn't have done something else like compounding all of the aid to Afghanistan until they allowed -- critical supplies to -- even a semi apology you think -- too much.
I think it sends the wrong message it's it reinforces this bad.
These -- -- -- Pakistani politics that they can take all of our money not a lot all of that a lot of -- and get away with just about anything including supporting terrorists I mean we we go over this again and again I mean the bottom line is is that maybe the relationships are starting to warm up the bit between the United States and Pakistan but the question is.
Can we trust these -- I don't think so you know they support the Haqqani Network are outgoing -- former.
JCS chairman admiral Mullen said that they are veritable arm the haqqani network of Pakistan's intelligence forces -- use terrorists against Afghanistan is -- against us season against the -- so not a trustworthy government so we're saying is we cannot trust Pakistan to help us fight the war on terror I think that's right they're more of an adversary really -- that war than they are an -- so.
What what's the next step we take -- saying it's a baby step do we take the next leap to try and improve relations with Pakistan.
I think we sort of you know well as Ronald Reagan said don't be afraid to see what you see this is an adversary that we have a temporary accommodation with but.
Long term for Afghanistan it's better if Afghanistan is tied more to Central Asia our friend in the area is India not Pakistan we should develop those relations former State Department senior advisor Christian -- Christian Christian thank you.
Filter by section