What a silly article.
I'm supposed that the Brits out-think suicide bombers by being culturally sensitive, while Americans just shoot the f#*kers?
"Tally ho! Jolly dynamite fellow. Have a crimpet and whatnot, being sure to refrain from blowing us all up and such other behaviours! Here! Here!"
Actually, their approach is the same as our SF's: get a lot of snitches working, and get someone to rat the bomber out before he can do his thing. Then you go and grab him and he goes to the professional interrogators (and you never hear what he said, even if you could plan more ops off of it, but that's a battle to fight another day).
Also, we found that the more people were exposed to what Americans were really like, the less trouble we had with them. A lot of troublemakers are stirred up from watching Hollywood nonsense and listening to bullshit from mullahs. When we medevaced a dying kid in a helicopter and brought him back healthy two weeks later, the BS merchants lost all their traction in our area. By the time I left there was one guy trying to pay someone to rocket us, and he had no takers.
I understand why the generals want everyone in vests and Kevlar chapeaus -- they don't like burying their men. But militarily, it's less effective than operating more openly -- once the shooting and shelling tapers off a bit. (I wore my vest sometimes, especially when looking for trouble. I only used my helmet once, for a parachute jump). And this stuff isn't perfect. Gene Vance had his vest on, and it didn't do him any good at all.
There's also a whacky belief that we can replace boots-on-ground patrolling, and human intelligence, with stuff like Predator reconnaissance and satellites. Most of the people who believe that have the "shafted pansy" emblem of MI on their Class A collar. Nobody who actually gets shot at thinks of the technology as that important.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F