It’s really something the way “progressive” ways of doing things, even after they’ve been proven wrong, dumb, suicidal, bone-headed, complete failures leading unerringly, ultimately to future disaster, always seem, rather than teaching a “what not to do, let’s learn from past mistakes” lesson, merely set a precedent for “what to do next time, and the time after that”.

The United States has for several years been secretly releasing high-level detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan as part of negotiations with insurgent groups, a bold effort to quell violence but one that U.S. officials acknowledge poses substantial risks.

As the United States has unsuccessfully pursued a peace deal with the Taliban, the “strategic release” program has quietly served as a live diplomatic channel, allowing American officials to use prisoners as bargaining chips in restive provinces where military power has reached its limits.

But the releases are an inherent gamble: The freed detainees are often notorious fighters who would not be released under the traditional legal system for military prisoners in Afghanistan. They must promise to give up violence — and U.S. officials warn them that if they are caught attacking American troops, they will be detained once again.

See what I mean?

Look at all the terrorists the Israelis have released as elements of “peace” agreements with the Palestinians, who have launched thermselves right back into terrorism.

Look at the significant percentage of GITMO detainees released who have later been found to be back in Afghanistan killing U.S. troops.

In this case,

There are no absolute guarantees, however, and officials would not say whether those who have been released under the program have later returned to attack U.S. and Afghan forces once again.

“Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,” said one U.S. official who, like others, discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the program.

Despite the above, however, we must remember that President Obama epitomises the idiocy “wisdom” of liberal reasoning.

The releases have come amid broader efforts to end the decade-long war through negotiation, which is a central feature of the Obama administration’s strategy for leaving Afghanistan. Those efforts, however, have yielded little to no progress in recent years….

(my italicising, there)

…which of course doesn’t seem to matter, since while Obama’s idea of negotiating with the Republicans is “my way or the highway”, his approach to negotiating with terrorists is somewhere on the cusp of “your wish is my command….”

…. In part, they have been stymied by the unwillingness of the United States to release five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay — a gesture that insurgent leaders have said they see as a precondition for peace talks.

How a president can place our people unnecessarily in danger as our side of “peace” talks by freeing murderous terrorists committed unto their version of God to kill Americans is as far beyond me as is Obama’s war on U.S. energy independence, but that’s another story entirely.

The entire WaPo article is here. Even a “progreesive” publication like the Washington Post can’t make the administration’s policies regarding releasing these terrorists sound any kind of sane.