Um, there are Brads serving in Iraq today that have successfully withstood 17 RPG hits and scores of 155mm IED detonations. Armor works, plain and simple. The soldiers know it, that is why they want it. The rear echelon new lighter deployable force types at the pentagon thought that the need for armor - which they understand too - could be restricted to front line troops. It can't, there aren't lines, particularly with IEDs, which are the largest threat numerically speaking. There is no loss of initiative in being in a Brad or armed 113, able to hose any ambush. And service and supply troops do not exactly become more venturesome and active because they are armored only by their BDUs.
I've seen plenty of M2A3's laying on their sides or plumped up like a Ball Park Frank after taking the blast from an IED. Armor protection works to a point, and, of course, it has function and purpose, but it is not a panacea for avoiding risk. It mitigates some risk and creates others. See post 33. Squantos sums it up pretty well.