Was Uribe Completely Wrong?

My post is on and related to this editorial from the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004275870_latined12.html

The recent conflicts in Ecuador involving a Columbian military attack against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) stationed in Ecuador appears to address many key concepts we have discussed throughout the course including the roles of non-state actors (e.g. terrorist groups), issues of national sovereignty, balance of threat, etc. Moreover, “use of force” reading and lectures from this past week also are relevant to this conflict.

Firstly, the importance of non-state actors is quite apparent in this conflict. FARC, as defined by the editorial “is a terrorist organization using mass kidnappings and drug trafficking to finance its activities against the Colombian government.” Colombia, the United States, Canada and the European Union all classify the FARC as a terrorist organization while Cuba and Venezuela classify it as an insurgent group. Since the raid in Ecuador, Chavez’s has demonstrated an unsettling level of support for FARC. Regardless of what the various states classify the FARC to be, all such classifications fit under our non-state actor definition, as articulated by Professor Nexon in one of our very first lectures and by many other international relations scholars. So with this conflict in particular, can we deny that the FARC is in fact a very important actor in the international system, as seen by not only the conflicts between Columbia and Ecuador, but also between states all throughout Latin America (Venezuela and Nicaragua in particular)? I think the obvious answer is no, we can’t. Thus a realist ideology would not fit in this issue, believing the naturally anarchic world’s primary actors are states. I think with the innumerable and ever-growing amount of terrorist groups around the world, it is safe to say that in this day and age, states may be playing first, second, and third base, but non-state actors— such as terrorist groups—are batting 400 from home plate. (I’m an avid baseball fan…I apologize for the cheesy metaphor).

Columbian President Uribe saw (and probably still does see) the FARC as not only a four-decade old nuisance, but also a serious threat to his administration. He evaluated the FARC to be a large enough threat to go so far as to infringe upon another nation’s sovereignty to balance said threat. This presents us with an interesting situation: a state actor—Columbia—must balance the threat of a non-state actor—FARC—by entering another (secondary) state—Ecuador—by force. Clearly, this infringement of Ecuadorian national sovereignty not only angered Ecuador but also the other nearby states (and potentially non state)-actors, only creating more conflict.

So the basic question is who was right in this situation? We may naturally side with Ecuador, the secondary victim in the conflict, but realistically, Columbia may not have had a choice. Uribe and other Columbian government officials perceive FARC to be large enough of a threat to respond with military force and with violating a neighboring country’s national sovereignty, not only severing diplomatic ties with Ecuador in the process, but also losing Venezuela and Nicaragua (as of now). Uribe realizes that he may have made a mistake and has since issued a public apology but was he acting in the best interest of his country? Is it better to ensure national security by forcefully fighting a terrorist group or to maintain regional diplomatic relations hoping for assistance in fighting said terrorist group?
Thoughts/ Comments?