Hostage/Prisoner Swaps

I am a realist.  Political behaviors are about power and security.  States (governments of the world) seek power because power provides security.  States seek power because power provides credibility and prestige.  When power has been maximized within the bounds of the current hierarchy of states, states will seek to maximize security based on held or perceived power.  Such maximization will lead to alliances and other balancing behaviors.  Also states seeking to maximize power and security will generally do so while seeking to limit the fiscal and political costs to themselves.

For my two cents, and given my view of realism, prisoner/hostage swaps for the holder of primacy in the hierarchy of power is a bad idea.  The Obama administration touts swapping 7 Iranian prisoners and forgoing potential prosecution of 14 other Iranians wanted for violating international sanctions for the return of 4 U.S. nationals held hostage and 1 U.S. national held prisoner as a winning gambit--and I for one say the Obama administration is wrong.  First we swapped prisoners, caught breaking the law, tried, found guilty, given sentences for 4 U.S. nationals who were held captive with no trials or sentencing made public and one U.S. national who had been tried and sentencing made public.  Second, by giving up much more 21 for 5, the U.S. does appear weak.  Third, such swaps encourage other states to seek U.S. hostages because they believe the U.S. administration will relent.  Finally, what else should we expect from an administration that gives up terrorists for a deserter and calls it a win.