Do we really need another war? This is in South America, of all places, where economies are still struggling to recover from decades of mismanagement. (Or, in the case of Venezuela, where economies are actively being mismanaged.)

Hugo Chávez seems to think we do, and President Bush is mincing no words in his support for Alvaro Uribe. But the Secretary of Defense doesn’t think a war is likely, and if it is, he doesn’t see us getting involved. I myself am unsure that our narco-fighting ally has much legal ground to stand on.

Colombia’s official stance is that they were in hot pursuit of Raúl Reyes. Now they’re also trotting out the weapons of mass destruction excuse. Can someone in Washington call and let them know it doesn’t work anymore? Even the U.S. isn’t buying it this time.

But why does Colombia get to have all the fun? We’ve been in hot (tepid?) pursuit of Osama bin Laden for years, and we pretty much know he’s hiding in Pakistan. That doesn’t mean we can start bombing around Quetta. If the Bush Administration isn’t able to solve the problem of striking Osama across an ally’s border, why should Colombia get a pass when the other country hates them?

In the end, it’s hard to side with the FARC guerrillas on this one. They are a vicious lot and present a serious threat to Colombian stability. Reyes deserved what he got. Besides, if we could put a guided missile on top of Osama bin Laden while he’s in his pajamas, we’d probably do it–better to ask forgiveness than seek permission. But if the cost of Colombia’s strike is a regional war with Venezuela, where the U.S. lacks the resources (or political will) to lend any real support, I question the cost/benefit of taking out a handful of Marxists.