Fred Hiatt and the Trotskyists at WSWS agree on Obama

In an interesting convergence of views, both the Washington Post and the World Socialist Web Site today claim that an Obama Presidency will continue a policy of U.S. imperialism. In the Post's case, the assumption is that Obama will assuredly "come around" to this view; for the WSWS, Obama is (unsurprisingly) already there.

Here's the conclusion to the Post editorial:

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

The WSWS piece differs in that it assumes that a "bi-partisan" consensus is emerging that the U.S. can secure its "vital interests" in Iraq with fewer troops, but (in the WSWS's view) that permanent bases in Iraq and escalation of the war in Afghanistan constitute what is still essentially a militaristic, imperialist policy.

What the WSWS makes explicit, and what the Post surely implies by its knowing reference to inevitability ("sooner or later"), is that the only ones fooled into thinking the outcome will be otherwise are "Obama's 'left' apologists." Indeed, I would say that for those who profess principled opposition to the war there are mounting reasons for abandoning that camp.