Six American soldiers have already tried trying to "rescue" the probably-traitorous Sgt. Bergdahl, and now -- with the release of five highly-dangerous enemy leaders -- many Americans and Afghanis will almost certainly die as the price of Obama's attempt to make himself look good.
Why did Obama do this? Why would he engage in a prisoner exchange while a war was still going on? Why one on terms so idiotically-favorable to the enemy? How could he imagine that this would make him look good? And why are some Americans willing to give him a pass on this incredibly-incompetent behavior?
Part of the problem is that progressive situational morality is very vulnerable to being beaten in a social game. See, a code of honor plays the game long-term; situational morality short-term, and one can beat situational morality by putting the holder of that belief in a situation where yielding avoids an immediate bad result at the cost of accepting a longer-term worse-result.
"Hostage" situations are prime examples of this. One yields something long-term important to "save the hostages" and then -- if one is playing to a political audience who <i>also</i> think short-term, one can proudly demonstrate that one has "saved the hostages," while the alternative -- of accepting that it is always the hostage-taker who controls his own actions and that hence one <i>isn't</i> "making" him harm the hostages (or, for that matter, spare them) is seen as "putting ideology above human lives."
Here is the logical conclusion of the hostage fallacy. If one can be manipulated into making real political concessions (such as releasing dangerous prisoners) by the enemy threat of maltreating genuine prisoners, than making that threat toward deserters or defectors works equally well. The enemy is taking advantage of the mistake Jimmy Carter made in 1979-81, and the other shoe has dropped.
And Obama is either a fool, or a traitor.