This issue tears me up. We can probably all agree that general transport in combat zones should be able to protect our guys from small arms fire.
We might even be able to agree that all such combat vehicles have V-hulls so that they can better survive mines/IEDs.
But some of those vehicles above are entirely inappropriate for running logistics and errands.
Don't get me wrong, scout and recon vehicles should be better armored (but even so they've got to be fast and quiet in order to sneak around)...
...and our armored personnel carriers should be improved...
...but the HMMWV is designed for what 4 to 6 people? This is the vehicle that you get in to go from one part of the base to another...something that doing all day in an M1A1 would probably strike all of us as inappropriate.
You need a general purpose vehicle for rear echelon logistics. Take the HMMWV, change its flat underbody to a V-hull with just enough armor to withstand running over a small ex-Soviet mortar, bullet-proof the sides and glass...and use that for non-combat purposes in the rear of war zones (e.g. bases, single-person transport, etc.).
Then use an armored vehicle like those shown above for recon and combat patrols. That's something that a general purpose vehicle isn't designed for.
Also look at the front bumper of the vehicle that globalheater posted-see the built in tow cable? Excellent idea. Otherwise I am not too sure about the vehicle as it appears to suffer from the same explosion absorbing flat bottom as the hummer.