Where else would you suggest?
Most European countries have to a smaller or greater extent been complicit in illegal CIA rendition flights over the last decade and/or are extradition-happy or have already made it clear he's not a desirable person to host (UK telling airlines not to allow him onto flights).
Poorer countries or countries with unstable governments provide plenty of options to bribe someone to pick him up and/or drone strikes.
It needs to be somewhere where the US can't interfere without local government support without a massive backlash, and where there's at least a chance the local government or judiciary will hinder or delay an extradition, and there's not many places that fits those criteria and even fewer that fits those criteria and are desirable to go to. I assume, e.g. Iran isn't particularly tempting.
Releasing the information was incredibly risky. He might have chosen what he sees as the least bad alternative on a long list of bad alternatives.
> whatever one may think of the ethics, legality or quality of targeting of the drone strikes, they do target people involved in a violent, armed conflict with the US - 'enemy combatants' as the USG likes to call them.
Or so they say. And use as an excuse for all kinds of "collateral damage" including dead children. I don't see why the leap to going after Snowden if he were to hide in a country where they did not see a large risk of political fallout and didn't have other options, would be so great. E.g. if he were to hide in any country with a rebel movement hostile to the US, it'd be easy to claim he was meeting terrorists. I don't we have any basis for saying anything about what his risk of being taken out is.
I also find it interesting that you write off his risk of being killed by questioning the likelihood of drone strikes. US intelligence agencies have decades of history of "quieter" assassination methods.