Current Tension in South America and the War on Terror

The recent tension in South America between Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and now Nicaragua had me thinking about a potential situation in Asia, more specifically, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Last weekend, the Colombian military killed FARC's second-in-command, Raul Reyes.  However, as the Colombian people celebrated, Venezuela and Ecuador fumed and spewed their anger towards Colombia.  The reason being, Colombian forces crossed the border into Ecuador and performed the raid without Ecuador's consent, which the Ecuadorian government calls a violation of state sovereignty.  In my limited knowledge of Public International Law, the Ecuadorian claim is definitely valid.  After the raid, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez blasted the Colombian government, recalled the Venezuelan diplomatic mission, and sent 10 troop battalions to the Venezuela-Colombia border.  In addition, the Ecuador's President, Rafael Correa, sent 3200 troops to the Ecuador-Colombia border and cut diplomatic ties with Colombia.  The rising tension has somewhat calmed as of late, even after Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega cut diplomatic ties with Colombia.  With all of this maneuvering in Central and South America, one must keep in mind that Colombia receives billions of dollars in U.S. aid every year to combat the FARC, a left-wing terrorist organization.  Whereas, Nicaragua and Venezuela have clearly allied with each other and Cuba as a quintessential thorn in the side of the United States and probably do not mind FARC's marxist ideals.  Nevertheless, tensions were high and cooler heads have prevailed after the OAS became involved.  So how does this pertain to the United States and the War on Terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan?  Early in the Presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama, now the leading Democratic Party candidate for President, stated that if the U.S. had intelligence of Al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, then he would order a strike without Pakistan's consent.  So would all of this tension in South America be similar to the fallout if an AQ leader was taken out in Pakistan?  In my assessment, it would be much higher considering that a majority of Pakistanis view President Pervez Musharraf as an American puppet.  This is a sentiment is similarly felt by many South Americans outside of Colombia towards Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.  But back to Pakistan; what if this was AQ's number two, Ayman Al-Zawahiri?  What if he is taken out in Pakistan by a drone or even a Marine/CIA/Army raid?  What would be the fallout following that move?  I can foresee many countries like Syria, Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia complaining about the U.S. usurping state sovereignty and acting unilaterally.  Maybe then, one can find out who is really "with us" versus "those against us."  Hopefully, the U.S. will not have to resort to violating the most basic tenets of International Law; instead, relying on the Afghan or Pakistani armed forces to do the work for us.  I highly doubt this will ever happen.  Pakistan would not want AQ eradicated because it would lose out on billions of dollars in U.S. aid.  Meanwhile, the Afghan army is not yet capable defending areas outside of Kabul.  So this leaves the United States with two options; the first is acting on intelligence and violating International Law or the second option, which is waiting for the AQ leaders to die off by some disease.  I'm not a betting man, but my money is on option one, regardless of who is in the White House.  The firestorm following this move will be immense for the commander-in-chief, but taking out AQ's leadership will outweigh the diplomatic tensions that will undoubtedly follow this action.  As far as the Colombian situation is concerned, there is a precedent going on as I write this post.  Recently, the Turkish army ventured into Northern Iraq to take out Kurdish rebel forces (the PKK).  Of course, Turkey is defending this action by arguing that the PKK is a terrorist organization and the army raid is important in defending Turkey's homeland.  Similarly, the Colombians have been battling the FARC for over 40 years and they argue along the same lines with Turkey.  So, where does that leave the U.S.?  Taking out an international terrorist organization's leadership in another country without consent could be argued as protecting the U.S. homeland.  Inevitably, this dilemma will be on the table for the next U.S. President, however, the it remains to be seen how he or she will act.