I notice a logical inconsistency here. Someone please help me out:

There are people who say:
“The US should not try to be a global policeman”

The same people also whine:
“The US is adopting double standards in its war against global terrorism. It attacks those who terrorise its own citizens, but turns a blind eye towards those who attack India.”

Surely, the second criticism is valid only if they accept the US as a global cop and are accusing it of not doing its duty?

In a civilized state, when someone attacks you, you do not retaliate on your own? You complain to the police who investigate, arrest your assailants, try them in court, and punish them if found guilty.

In an anarchy, you can’t do any of those things, because the law-enforcement apparatus does not exist. You’d have to take steps to defend yourself. You’d have to barricade your homes and arm yourself to the teeth. When attacked, you’d have to retaliate on your own. This is an unpleasant state of affairs, but if you are in one such situation, what else can you do?

The world is the second type of place. There is no police to file an FIR with. Every country has to act for itself. The US has no apriori duty to tackle Pakistani terrorism any more than we have an obligation to intervene in the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. If we want the US to help us, we’d have to point out that Pakistani terrorism is an integral part of the threat that the US faces. But that is an appeal to self-interest, not to the principle of fairness.