Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith601
That's something that's difficult to prove, but supposedly the British successes in Basra (compared to the restiveness of Anbar) was due in part to the Brits switching to Land Rovers and removing their Kevlar and helmets shortly after the "invasion" phase ended while the US continued patrolling aggressively in full gear and heavy armor. I've heard similar stories out of the Balkans where US troops patrolled in Bradleys and M113s while others preferred jeeps and foot sweeps.
|
That's neither here nor there. As you said, hard to prove when they were in a different area. We can consider it less restive as a result of their tactics, or less restive in and of itself. The Marines in particular still conducted their own foot patrols, which is why some of them were displeased with it being absolutely required to wear all of the new body armor panels, and side panels as well.
I just see no clear way, still, to show that what troops wear or what they ride is what primarily breeds resentment of them. You hit the nail on the head, they were patrolling aggressively. Does that not matter more than what they drove up in?