Its said that during the Civil War, the Union rejected an offer by Confederate authorities for a massive prisoner exchange, one involving thousands of POWs. The Union reasoned that the Confederacy could ill afford caring for prisoners and it would drain their resources, and that the South would have much more difficulty replacing trained troops than would the North. Not a very humanitarian action, even if it can be argued that it shortened the war and saved lives in the long run.

But Obama’s action in trading a captured American POW for five top-level terrorists leaves me baffled. These men are very dangerous, it will lead to losses of American lives, and yes, it did involve negotiating with terrorists, which will only make future incidents of this kind more likely.

And one obvious fact seems to have been left out of all the press coverage on this matter and the official justifications for its controversial resolution. The American was not captured by enemy forces as a result of military action. It appears he was a deserter, he had deliberately disobeyed orders, left behind his unit and his comrades to seek out the enemy. He abandoned his post and neglected his duty, and if he had not been taken prisoner, would be eligible court martial. And if we had located him, brave men would have risked their lives to rescue him. Unless it can be shown somehow that this was not his fault, I don’t feel he should have been involved in any prisoner exchange, and certainly not for these guys.

I can’t think of any better solution than to have adopted the line of reasoning of the Union when faced with a comparable decision. The enemy should have been allowed to keep this guy. Let them pay for his upkeep and suffer the propaganda consequences if he should die. They deserve each other.