It's also the truth, yes? Pakistan (or factions thereof) has done everything it could possibly get away with to impede us in the Middle East. Half the reason the war in Afghanistan was so difficult in the beginning; Musharraf by no means spoke for his entire government, particularly the military. Like you say, this does not excuse killing children. It just changes the narrative a bit. We are "allies" with Pakistan on the same level that we are allies with Saudi Arabia or Turkey (sort of). We assassinated bin Laden on Pakistani soil with barely a thought for the consequences, and we drop bombs on Pakistani citizens with (hopefully) quite a bit of thought to the morals, but not much to reprisal.Because Pakistan is a friend in name only. At least, that's the probable behind-closed-doors justification.
I think it was b_b who pointed out that the British Empire knew exactly what they were doing when they slammed 6 warring mountain tribes into one country and called it PAKiSTAN (Punjab, Azad Jammu, Kashmir, Sind-...istan). His point was it would always be an internecine pigfuck and the players of The Great Game wouldn't have to worry about them accomplishing anything resembling self-determination. Saudi Arabia we sell things to. Turkey is closer. But there would be a kerfuffle if we started running missions into Turkey like we owned it.
Actually... the country was named Pakistan after the Hindustani (Urdu)/Persian word پاك (pak), meaning 'pure'. This was backronymed by Rahamat Ali, a prominent Pakistani nationalist, to contain the NW provinces of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. Azad Kashmir didn't really exist until the Indo-pak war, and the entirety of Jammu is in india. Saying that the region consisted of 6 warring mountain tribes along those lines is inaccurate too. While there were a few of them in the northwestern regions/modern day FATA and neighbouring territories, they were ignored by the Britons/used to divide the tribes territory, like with the Pashtuns and the Durand Line. Most of the land wasn't all that different from (the rest of) India, other than being Muslim majority instead of Hindu majority. On a side note, Jinnah actually disliked the name, because he felt that 'pak' would mean that there was necessarily a notion of 'napak' (impure), but was later forced to accept it.
Most of my reading has been concerning the history of India, which is a bit hard to cover without going into Pakistan. I haven't read nearly enough to say what is a good account and what isn't, but I would say that going through the books Pakistan Or Partition Of India by B.R. Ambedkar and India Divided by Rajendra Prasad are worth going through, primarily because of their status as contemporary accounts from pre-independence, and hence pre-partition India.