Norman Geras points to a glaring contradiction in David Clark's piece in today's Grauniad, in which he argues for intervention in Sudan, having opposed intervention in Iraq.

I am at a loss to understand the mindset of those who take such directly contradictory positions. It is at least consistent to take the High Tory line that it's all none of our business, much as I disagree with such a view. But there is simply no convincing, let alone consistent, argument in favour of action in Sudan but not in Iraq. Either we hve a duty to intervene or we don't (and that, of course, leaves out the cassus belli in Iraq - Saddam's failure to observe the UN resolutions).

And please, let's hear no more of the 'but Iraq was hypocritical - what about Zimbabwe' argument. It is indeed a moral outrage that we of all countries are standing by whilst Mugabe starves and butchers many of his people to death and destroys a wonderful civilised country. But it is the most glaring non sequitur to conclude that our failure to act properly against Mugabe somehow destroys the case for intervening in Iraq.