Ok guys here is something (Specially for Mushy apologists and PA - more time on laptop then on field - Jawans. Here is a script from Bhutto's book 'Myth of Independence':
""The question before the smaller nations of today is how they should conduct their affairs in such a manner as to safeguard their basic interests; to retain their territorial integrity and to continue to exercise independence in their relationship with the Global Powers as well as with the smaller nations. The relationship between the Global Powers and the smaller countries is on an unequal footing, whereby the former can exact a multitude of concessions without responding in sufficient, let alone equal, measure. No small nation can possibly bring a Global Power under its influence on the plea of justice or because of the righteousness of its cause. In the ultimate analysis, it is not the virtue of the cause that becomes the determining factor, but the cold self-interest of the Global Powers which shapes their policy, and this self-interest has better chances of prevailing in an endless and unequal confrontation between a Global Power and smaller nations.
Should the smaller nations therefore obediently follow the dictates of Global Powers and exchange their independence for material gains and promises of economic prosperity? The answer is an emphatic 'No'. Caught in the nutcracker of the global conflict the underdeveloped nations might in despair conclude that they can only marginally influence the status quo, that in reality they have no independent choice but to trim their policies to the requirements of one Global Power or another. This is an unnecessarily pessimistic view, a negation of the struggle of man, expressed through the nation-state, to be free.
The force of freedom must triumph because it is stronger than any other force for which man will lay down his life. It is still possible for the smaller nations, with adroit handling of their affairs, to maintain their independence and retain flexibility of action in their relationship with Global Powers.
It would be inexpedient, and perhaps dangerous, for smaller nations to identify themselves completely with the total interests of one Global Power to the exclusion of the others. Common interest and the pattern of events may make it necessary for a small nation to be more closely associated with one Global Power than with another, but, even so, it is not impossible for it to maintain normal relations with the others on the basis of honourable bilateral relations. When the national interests of a state clash with the interests of a Global Power, it would be preferable to isolate the area of conflict in the direct dealings with that Great Power. A workable equilibrium should be sought independent of the point on which vital interests differ, provided, of course, that the segregation of conflicting interests is not only possible but is scrupulously reciprocal. Every reasonable effort should be made to put into action preventive diplomacy to avoid Global Power interventions which subject the weaker nations to suffer from punitive diplomacy. If this, however, is not found to be feasible, it is better to make the position clear by taking a stand against encroachment. It is preferable to have one sharp crisis and a firm position than to permit procrastination to create conditions of permanent crisis. In such a situation, every subsequent crisis will do greater harm to the smaller Power until eventually the Global Power overwhelms it. So, if insulation is not possible, it is better to take a positive position and evolve a new pattern of understanding.
Pressure is both a worm and a monster. It is a worm if you stamp on it, but it becomes a monster if you recoil. In 1962 Burma took a firm line with the United States when it considered it had no honourable alternative course. For a brief period there were strains in its relations with the United States, but now relations are better. Both states had to find a new relationship the moment it was understood that inroads would not be tolerated. Cambodia, similarly,has demonstrated commendable firmness in dealing with the global interests of the United States. More recently both Burma and Cambodia have taken a firm line with China as well. Indeed, during the height of the cultural revolution, the latter
threatened to withdraw its ambassador from Peking. Had it not been for the intervention of Chou En-Lai, this might well have happened. If it had taken place, Cambodia would have had the dubious distinction of severing diplomatic relations with two of the three Global Powers.
A policy of drift is fatal. Confrontation with a Global Power should be avoided; but if it becomes unavoidable, it should be faced instantly and firmly. Delay or irresolution inevitably results in piecemeal compromises, which in turn injure the national interests of the small nation. However, before resorting to confrontation, every reasonable effort should be made to avoid a direct diplomatic clash by insulating the points of conflict. In striving for such an arrangement as a first measure, the state concerned will not be compromising its stand. On the contrary, it will prove that the cause is so dear to it that, even against the opposition of a Global Power, it will be pursued more practicably in accordance with the situation, instead of getting bogged down in sterile controversy, resulting in mounting tension without the national aim being achieved. Once a working accommodation is achieved by the insulation of points of conflict, persuasion and indirect efforts will become more effective. It is safer and more prudent to avoid a head-on collision with a Global Power. It is wiser to duck, detour, step aside, and enter from the back door. It is futile to try to win over or implore a Global Power to change its policies by continued direct efforts on the plea of justice or alignment. Reminders of services rendered in the past are of no avail. Neither cringing nor sycophancy, neither sentiment nor argument, carry any weight in such dealings. The simple fact of the matter is that, in the long run, a Global Power is not likely to be outwitted, so it is better for a small nation to take a realistic attitude and evolve both policy and strategy on rational rather than on subjective lines
-----------------------
Sovereignty of Pakistan, safety of its civilians was the point where PA should have stood without fear of repercussions and drawn the line. PA on the other hand became bounty hunters and allowed drone attacks for dollars program.
(@Awesome: you should read this and take solace in the fact that even Burma and Cambodia beat PA in honor with their rag tag armies)
