Everything President Obama does is first poured through the political prism of how the cost/benefit of action either assists or diminishes his personal agenda.  DUH- This is no remarkable insight, by now everyone admits it.

However, to understand the equation of political cost/benefit analysis in the decision to try and rescue hostage Luke Somers, you only need to put the facts onto the table – the pattern forms itself.  This is the White House view:

♦  The al-Qaeda captors stated they were going to kill Somers on Sunday. That wouldn’t look good – but, well, meh, really no biggie.
♦  The al-Qaeda captors stated they were going to release the South African hostage, Pierre Korkie, on Sunday.  Alone, that’s a neutral factor.
♦  The al-Qaeda captors were going to release Korkie simultaneous to killing Somers. Rut Roh – That looks worse – now ears are perked.
♦  The al-Qaeda captors were going to kill Somers because the U.S. wouldn’t do what Korkie’s country did. Even worse yet – Fox News type alarm bells ringing.

Against the backdrop of the last point, the potential for public scrutiny / political embarrassment becomes too risky.   Hostage Somers net value now weighted on the political ego of President Obama?  Yikes.

Guess what decision is going to get the nod?

♦ al-Qaeda killing Somers is bad, but not beyond a statement, some worked up sadness, an obligatory phone call to mom and dad, and maybe a missed day of golf.  Maybe.
♦ al-Qaeda killing Somers, and letting the other guy go – because Obama wouldn’t negotiate with them, and al-Qaeda putting a U-Tube video of said decision into the media cycle,…. cast against the backdrop of Fox News replaying and contrasting the Bowe Bergdahl deal,… well, um,… DUDE!!…. now you’re just about guaranteeing fleets of disposable Ospreys loaded with however many spec-ops it takes to stop that optic from ever happening.
So sayeth the crew (McDonough, Rhodes, Blinkin, Jarrett, Podesta)
It’s odd.
It’s an Obamaism.
The best hope for you, as a hostage, to get a rescue attempt – is if al-Qaeda puts your physical safety in a position of being a political embarrassment.
If you, as a hostage, are just going to be an ordinary terror-type murder. You’re toast.
If you, as a hostage, might be an “optically embarrassing death” – well, now the serious rescue cometh.  There might even be a cancelled golf game.  Maybe.
The resulting status of the hostage post rescue effort is essentially irrelevant.  Once the embarrassment risk is gone, there’s only upsides:

• Dead hostage = do the phone mom and dad thing; we tried, and agonized over the decision… etc. But optical risk avoided.

• A live rescue = oh snap, that’s delicious. Bring him to the White House, organize the extra cameras, medals, trumpets, oh the intoxicating joyful opportunity – and then to the SOU balcony for the magnanimous parade of the lightbringer’s greatness.

See? Win/Win.
So if you’re ever a hostage, and Obama is still President, convince your captors to tie your death to something (besides you) that will make Dear Leader seem weak and ineffective.
Having said all of that – the decision to go was still the right one, even though President Peace Prize did it for all the wrong reasons.
See, I toldya.  It’s odd.
It’s an Obamaism.