If it is a war, it isn't over:
The Taliban are going to continue fighting until they're back in partial or total control of the Afghan government, and they will kill anyone who stands between them and that end - American, Nato troops, Afghan army... So Obama is replenishing the enemy in time of war. Seen strictly in war terms, there is no deal.
All right, Steyn says, then suppose it is not a war but a negotiation with terrorists similar to the arrangement between the UK and the IRA in which the government released prisoners in exchange for an end to the bombings:
And the bombing has stopped. So yes, there's a few people wandering around Belfast and Derry one might prefer to see hanging from a gibbet, but at least they're not blowing the legs off grannies at bus stops. That's not a small thing. In this case, the Taliban will still be engaging in the Afghan equivalent of granny-bombing - killing and terrorizing their way back to power. So again, in terrorist-negotiation terms, there is no deal.
Finally Steyn considers the possibility that it is a law enforcement issue. That seemed to be the track Obama followed in his recent West Point speech where he spoke of America following international norms:
But in this case he's releasing on to the world stage war criminals accused of war crimes by the "international community", who would like at least two of this guys on trial in the Hague. Mullah Noori, for example, is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Shia Muslims. Meanwhile, a schlub who made the mistake of having dinner at a Boston restaurant with the Tsarnaev brothers is facing 40 years in the slammer. So, even in law-enforcement terms, there is no deal.
Steyn concludes by reminding us that the real heroes are not Bowe Bergdahl or his father or Obama, but the men who stayed with their posts, did their duty, and lost their lives as a result of Bergdahl's desertion.