Pakistan and America: Making up, a bit AFTER seven months of bitter haggling, the word "sorry" has at last been uttered in Washington. That allows Pakistan to begin to restore its ties with America, after they were strained - almost to breaking - following the deaths, in November, of 24 Pakistani soldiers manning a post on the Afghan border. American aircraft killed the soldiers in a dreadful, and confusing, night-time "friendly fire" incident. In retaliation, Pakistan stopped the transport across its territory of supplies for NATO forces in landlocked Afghanistan. That added about $100m a month to the cost of the war, as the coalition turned to a much longer resupply route running through Central Asia. Pakistan had demanded an apology and new terms for its alliance with America. Pakistan's armed forces even suggested that the border deaths had been "deliberate at some level." But, despite raising the stakes, Pakistan managed to get surprisingly little out of the deal that was announced on July 3rd. American officials had got close to saying sorry in February, and it is unclear what, if anything, has changed in the months of talks that followed. The apology itself sounds rather mealy-mouthed. America's reluctance to say sorry fully, in turn, is because of its own anger at continued operations by Afghan insurgents, crossing from bases on Pakistani soil, who attack and kill NATO soldiers. Pakistan dropped a demand for a transit tax (at first it had sought $5,000 per lorry) on NATO supplies, which had in effect been given free passage since the Afghan war began in 2001. Now its officials emphasise that what matters is not "financial gains" but "the principle of sovereignty." Yet that leaves unclear just why Pakistan argued for months over the tax. America will however release over $1 billion in reimbursements owed to Pakistan for the costs of military operations along the Afghan border, boosting the country's anaemic budget. America is also likely to support a new IMF loan programme for Pakistan. However a demand for an end to missile strikes by unmanned American "drone" aircraft in Pakistan's tribal areas is unlikely to be met. It is possible that Pakistan buckled after pressure behind the scenes. Some American officials want to pronounce as terrorist groups the Haqqani network, a fearsome Afghan insurgent outfit, and Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an India-focused Islamic extremist organisation. Both of these are comfortably based on Pakistani territory. Designating them that way, in turn, would make Pakistan, in America's eyes, an official harbourer of terrorists. Another factor may have been the recent capture, in India, of an alleged militant said to have been present in a Karachi "control room" in November 2008 to help direct a devastating terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai. Pakistan risks looking ever more exposed. Given that, it would much prefer to keep America as its ostensible ally, not a declared enemy.