During the visit and talks with Pakistani leaders, Clinton found herself repeatedly on the defensive from ordinary Pakistanis brimming with resentment toward U.S. foreign policy.
During a live broadcast of an interview before a predominantly female audience of several hundred, Clinton struggled to avoid describing the classified U.S. effort to target terrorists, and still try to explain the efforts of American foreign policy.
One woman asked Clinton how she would define terrorism.
“Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?” the woman asked. Then she asked if Clinton considered both the U.S. missile strikes and militant bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier in the week as acts of terrorism.
“No, I do not,” Clinton replied.
Another man said bluntly: “Please forgive me, but I would like to say we’ve been fighting your war.”
One woman even had the chutzpah to call US drone attacks “executions without trial.”
So the Pakistanis, or, as George W. Bush once called them, the Pakis, are getting restive. For some reason, they don’t like being used as pawns in US wars, nor do they enjoy being targeted in drone strikes. When you consider all we’ve done for them, you’d think they’d be better sports about it. I mean, if it wasn’t for America, they’d never experience the joys of things like Kentucky Fried Chicken, or Hostess Twinkies, or Bruce Willis movies. That’s gratitude for you.
No matter. Anti-American sentiment there is on the rise, which could threaten our efforts on the entire “AfPak” front. It’s just one more bad situation on our increasingly dark horizon.
Mere mortals might consider this a good time to reconsider their situation, to regroup, and maybe even rethink their entire strategy. But we’re not mere mortals. We’re Americans. What do we do when we’re losing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, while at the same time suffering a severe recession at home?
Easy: Put the screws to Iran, because a bankrupt empire can never have too many enemies.