If you were to write the speech for George W. Bush, in which he probably will want to sell "The Surge" to the nation - how would you try to hide the fact, that doing now what might have worked three years ago, does not mean it will work now?
You probably would need to imply, that somehow we can go back to square one to start over again. And that a discussion about why more troops are needed now, not from the beginning, just was sour grapes. But you should try to get into this discussion, because having your opponents ask why it hadn't been done before, somehow implies that it would have worked - and that it will work now. So you could actually trick your opponent into strengthening your message.
How could you counter that approach? You would need to make absolutely clear, that the situation in Iraq has changed so much, that even if more troops had worked in 2003, they probably won't make a difference in 2007. You would need a tangible metaphor.
How about: You cannot save a broken sculpture by sending more masons and more chisels.
Read More