What’s done is done. Our editorial board is split on whether trading five high-level Taliban prisoners for one American soldier held by terrorists was justified or not, but there’s no going back — and there’s also no stopping consequences.

We will find out soon enough whether or not the Guantanamo releasees go back to the battlefield (four of them have been said likely to do so by the Pentagon) and whether or not their presence as senior strategic leaders will aid the Taliban in overthrowing the Afghan government after the American presence has dwindled there.

We will also find out soon enough whether or not American lives are put in jeopardy overseas as a result of encouraging terrorists and just plain criminals to take hostages in hopes of exacting payment from the U.S. government. Taliban officials have already said they have learned that lesson and plan to use it against the United States.

Finally, Sgt. Bergdahl will find out soon enough whether there are consequences to his apparent act of desertion. The only good thing about the prisoner swap is that Bergdahl has returned to military custody on our side, where an investigation will take place and it will be determined whether or not he should be court-martialed for abandoning his post, as his fellow soldiers allege.

It seems that the Obama administration based the decision for the swap on an important principal — “no soldier left behind” — because the political downsides for this exchange were abundant and that is the only justification for such a controversial deal.

Administration officials knew they were trading for a soldier who was probably a deserter and possibly a collaborator with the enemy, and they knew that releasing five Taliban heavyweights would be a magnet for criticism.

That is why it is so perplexing how badly the exchange was handled politically. President Obama took to the Rose Garden to announce the exchange with Bergdahl’s heavily bearded father, who came across as a sympathizer with his son’s captors and with the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

It was something that could only be well-received by Code Pink and other anti-war elements. Otherwise, it came off as an incredibly inept attempt to spin a controversial deal into something better than it is.

This was a situation that should have been handled with as much low-key finesse as possible rather than the trumpeting approach that was taken.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.