Is it good or bad to be a smooth operator? According to the Hebrew Bible, it is an excellent thing if one is a smooth operator for the right reasons, but a clear and present danger if one is so for the wrong reasons.
A smooth operator in Hebrew is termed ערום , translated in two rather different ways in most translations – ‘crafty, cunning’ or ‘sensible, prudent’ - depending on whether the trait in question is possessed by a bad or good person, respectively.
The smooth operator par excellence in the Bible is the serpent in Gen 3:1. In Proverbs, however, the same adjective is used positively, of circumspect individuals. Let me count the ways in which Barack Obama might be judged a smooth operator according to the book of Proverbs:
אָדָם עָרוּם
כֹּסֶה דָּעַת
וְלֵב כְּסִילִים
יִקְרָא אִוֶּלֶת
A smooth operator,
one who keeps knowledge to himself [lit.; ‘hides’].
The heart of fools
will shout out folly. [12:23]
אֱוִיל בַּיּוֹם יִוָּדַע כַּעְסוֹ
וְכֹסֶה קָלוֹן עָרוּם
A fool at once, his vexation will be known,
a smooth operator, one who keeps insults to himself [lit., ‘hides’]. [12:16]
אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם
אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ
Do not move the ancient landmark
that your fathers had made. [22:28]
Exhibit A in favor of the hypothesis that Barack Obama is a smooth operator in the positive sense: he kept his preference for a muscular, robust foreign policy to himself during the campaign season. Now he is thinking of putting the hawkish Hillary Clinton at Secretary of State, keeping Republican Robert Gates around, and putting figures like Richard Holbrooke (the architect of the war against Serbia carried out without UN approval) in key positions. Now he has pardoned Joseph Lieberman. Now he shows no intention of undoing the progress achieved in Iraq.
The signals bespeak continuity. This is “change” I “can believe in.” I’m not sure why those who voted for Obama would believe in it, but let’s face it: the center is where America holds together, not on one of its extreme fringes.
Time will tell whether these early signals are harbingers of more to come.
Perhaps, John, you really think it is an excellent thing if one is a smooth operator if you personally agree with them, but a clear and present danger if you don't agree with them. If it is true that Obama told America that he would seek peace in the world and especially in Iraq, but in fact intends to continue the warlike policy of his predecessor, he is a "smooth operator" in the sense that Satan is, a liar and a deceiver. Let's hope and pray that my fears for the world, and your apparent hopes for more war and chaos, do not come to pass.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | November 22, 2008 at 06:23 AM
As one who voted for Obama, I'm happier with his appointments than I had expected to be, largely because I think he's doing better on the domestic front.
I think it's easy to overestimate how hawkish Hillary Clinton is, however. If Obama does intend to bring the war in Iraq to an end, and can impose his overall vision on a fairly diverse cabinet, then Clinton is likely to be the person most capable of helping him do that.
Anti-war advocates--and I'm strongly opposed to the war in Iraq--need to be aware that there are great risks in the process of pulling out. Strong leadership will help.
I would disagree with you, John, that Obama is a smooth operator in the good sense if he reneges on his vision. I think it is understood in politics that specific details may have to be adjusted based on circumstances, but the overall vision should remain.
Increasing diplomatic engagement, and getting U. S. forces out of Iraq, while also planning to avoid getting into similar situations in the future are, in my view, part of the overall vision.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | November 22, 2008 at 07:04 AM
I'm not overly surprised by this. The Democrats supported domestic wiretapping in secret, but they came out against it publically to make points against Bush.
Posted by: James Pate | November 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Peter and Henry,
I think you neglect the fact that Obama altered his position on the war in Iraq as the facts on the ground changed. Obama recently said that the surge (which he voted against, and which McCain firmly supported) succeeded "beyond our wildest expectations."
He will no doubt do everything in his power to preserve the gains of the surge he opposed. He will not cut and run. That might have made sense if Iraq was another Vietnam. Only a year or so ago, that's what many Democrats and a majority of Americans thought Iraq was: a lost cause. But it's not. Thanks to the surge Obama (and probably you two) opposed.
BTW, the success of the surge does not excuse Bush's Lincolnesque patience with a failed war policy under Rumsfeld. Still, history is about final results, not intermediate mistakes.
James,
However, Obama will do something ASAP that Bush should have done: close down Guantanamo. To be sure, this was already underway, but the process was ridiculously slow. The whole thing was grossly mishandled by the current administration. McCain paid for that, as he should, in a two-party system, though he would have done about what Obama will do.
Posted by: JohnFH | November 24, 2008 at 12:39 AM
John, I'm not saying Obama should cut and run. I didn't support the surge but maybe I too was wrong not to support it. If the point of the surge was to prepare the way for withdrawal ASAP, then it is not a bad thing. I trust that Obama will not allow it to become what McCain might have allowed it to be, a pretext for an even more prolonged occupation.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | November 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM
It's quite possible, of course, that a reduced American military presence in Iraq will continue for the forseeable future. That depends on the facts on the ground.
To this day, there is an American military presence in Europe, South Korea, Japan, many locations in the Middle East, and so on.
Obama has not indicated that he will change any of that. He was not elected on a platform of a reduction of US force projection around the world. American military might remains a stabilizing agent in many contexts. I repeat, Obama did not campaign on the promise to reduce US responsibilities around the world. George W. Bush did, before 9/11, and was elected partially on the basis of that promise. But times have changed. "Yankee go home!" is a slogan with relatively little popularity around the world at the moment, including Iraq.
The terms of US military presence are governed by bilateral agreements. As, I imagine, will soon be the case in Iraq. If not, Iraq places itself in danger, and with it, the entire region.
Posted by: JohnFH | November 24, 2008 at 11:38 PM
John,
We never thought to translate ערום as 'smooth operator'. We like it!
D&T
Posted by: danielandtonya | November 25, 2008 at 03:10 PM
John, it is not true that Obama has not indicated that he will end the US occupation of Iraq. One of his campaign pledges (as reported by avaaz.org and posted by me at http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=839) was "Withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months and keep no permanent bases in the country". This is confirmed and more detail is given at http://change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda/, on Obama and Biden's own site. Note also "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased". Perhaps you should read this page before misrepresenting Obama's policies.
How much recent experience do you have of anti-American feeling worldwide? There is plenty of it in the countries I know and have news from.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | November 25, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Daniel and Tonya,
If I remember correctly, I heard that translation made orally at some point in my training. ElShaddai Edwards, again if I remember correctly, came up with it on his own independently, and made use of it on his blog as a way of bringing out a word play with "naked" in Genesis.
Peter,
You take campaign promises very seriously! History demonstrates that they are rarely kept to the letter.
How will things work out? It may happen that the end of US occupation in Iraq will look like the end of same in the cases of Germany, Italy, and South Korea: we still have "non-combat" troops there, into the foreseeable future.
Or it may turn out that the end of the US occupation of Iraq will look more like that of the Philippines. We still have troops there as well, on short-term projects.
The Kurds, a majority of the Shia, and a majority of the Sunni want us to stick around as long as necessary. The debate concerns the conditions of that permanence. The estimated length of the stay of combat troops is of no small symbolic value, but will depend on facts on the ground.
BTW, there is a broad political consensus about this over here among Republicans and Democrats. Note that Obama seems ready to keep Bush's Secretary of Defense in place for a time precisely in order to preserve continuity.
If you think that something other than continuity in foreign policy will be the trademark of Obama's administration, I think you are sorely mistaken.
Still, over here we are all hoping the rest of the world will cooperate with an Obama administration working in continuity with the work of previous administrations to a degree it would not have with a McCain administration.
Peter, I know you believe that Republicans are qualitatively different from Democrats. Excuse the cynicism that comes from being a member of a family that has been politically engaged for generations, but I just don't see it. If you wish, you can also blame it on my Calvinism.
Perhaps you even believe the GOP belongs to an axis of evil. That's what you get because you live in an information world dominated by the BBC. The latter has long demonized Republicans as a way of indicating their support for leftward political philosophy.
Posted by: JohnFH | November 26, 2008 at 05:34 PM
John, the fact that most politicians break their promises does not make it any less lying and deception to deliberately break these promises. I accept that in some cases promises have to be set aside because they are overtaken by events or "facts on the ground", but politicians who don't even try to fulfil their promises are liars and deceivers. I expect better things of Obama, that he will really try to get American forces out of Iraq by mid 2010 and leave at most a token force.
Don't forget you still have forces on our territory as well. Why are they still there? I don't have a clue. Are they wanted? We don't mind a few liaison officers and NATO staff, but why do you need huge air bases? We tolerate them mainly I guess because they bring in lots of money!
Meanwhile you don't have a clue what I think about your two main parties. Actually I don't think much of them at all. I don't expect radical discontinuity. But Obama has made "change" his slogan, even the name of his website, and since I don't think he is a liar I expect to see some, careful and well thought out, not hurried, change.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | November 27, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Peter,
I expect you are right, that we will see some careful change in the midst of continuity. We would have had that with McCain as well, though the content of the change would have been somewhat but not radically different.
Posted by: John Hobbins | November 27, 2008 at 01:24 PM