[mc32]

I think this is the pragmatic approach vs an ideological approach. What would the cost be if the peace were not agreed upon? More kidnappings, more drugs, more innocent deaths, etc. Or you could try and continue the stalemate for another 30 years and vindicate justice.

At some point you have to cut your losses and consider sunken costs. It's not easy. Lots of people will be displeased, but in the end it might be the best outcome for their society.

[simonmd]

There was no 'stalemate'. FARC in 2010 were 5000 strong, taking heavy losses and on the run. Then came Santos, who obsessed over winning international recognition that has eluded him at home, legitimized FARC, gave them an international stage and set in motion a 6 year 'peace process' that has left FARC in congress and senate, with all their crimes whitewashed, and with our already weak justice system mortally wounded.

[fmp]

>I think this is the pragmatic approach vs an ideological approach

I'm all for pragmatism, but I believe in long term pragmatism, not short term pragmatism.

Rewarding terrorists gets them to stop killing you, which is pragmatic, except in the long run it encourages other terrorist groups to start killing you, which is unpragmatic.