Colombia’s attack on the Marxist/Lenninist group Farc across the border in Ecuador is, I think, a bigger deal than many of us suspect in the West. While the last century has certainly not been anything less than rife with conflict in the Americas, this may be the closest any of us has come to full scale international war in my lifetime.

Colombia’s government relied on informants as well as communications intercepts and technology provided by the U.S., according to Jeremy McDermott of the BBC.  Senior rebel Raul Reyes (aka Luis Edgar Devia Silva) and 16 other guerrillas were located in Ecuador, and the ground was leveled by bombs from Colombian jets.  Farc, according to many analysts, will likely not recover from this blow.  While it is undoubtedly sad to see violence of this nature, the elimination of a rebel faction is a less relevant issue than the international situation at hand.  Rebel groups and terrorist organizations will likely always exist.

The issue of relevance, I believe, is: to what extent does a sovereign country have the right to cross international borders in order to defend its sovereignty?  Moreover, what defines a threat to that sovereignty?

Colombia has exerted its power over Ecuador, to the chagrin of  its neighboring countries, following an example set by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc., etc., and even more recently by Turkey in Iraq.  Machiavellian foreign policies may never leave the globe, but I’m afraid the U.S. has done more than our fair share of encouragement and participation in such violent and undiplomatic events over the course of recent history.

I’d like to see that situation reversed, and it seems to me that we need a leader who is willing to negotiate and simultaneously unwilling to compromise.  With an election season looming in November, I can only hope the right Obama is elected.