The domestic blow-back is expected, but I'm interested in the political and ethical questions it raises about negotiating with 'the enemy' during an armed conflict, specifically when that enemy is not a recognized state belligerent and is a party to unlawful forms of warfare. It appears that (1) our legal norms can potentially obstruct the formulation of political solutions (in this case, a negotiation), and (2) that the circumstances of the soldier's capture is less important than the perceived gain in his exchange. Assuming that the exchange facilitates further dialogue with the aim of stabilizing the inevitable transition with the American withdrawal by the end of 2015, I think Bergdahl's conduct, while of great concern in itself, is irrelevant within the context of the conflict as a whole. Bottom line: does the exchange provide the US with a favorable political opening?

On a related note - the act of negotiation itself does not incentivize further activity. The gains made by the process of negotiation can potentially incentivize repeated behavior. US soldiers are already valuable POWs so I fail to see how this exchange increases that risk, especially given the factors that have made the Iraq and Afghanistan wars so low in POWs in the first place. If anything, the exchange indicates that the Taliban is a rational organization capable of responding to incentives.