The problem with body armor now has more to do with risk adversity than anything else. The body armor we use now was not originally designed to be used the way we do now. It was intended for short duration use on an assault, especially in MOUT. In MOUT, and CQC in particular, the ranges at which combat takes place necessitate the use of some kind of body armor. Weight is less of an issue because of the shorter distances moved (versus contact in a wooded area or an open area), and the need for protection outweighs the need for speed or endurance. The problem came about when it was determined that the need for protection outweighed all other factors in all cases. As Ken often points out, when politicians become too involved in military operations bad things happen. In this case it became popular to attack the Bush administration and Rumsfeld in particular for sending our troops to combat "without adequate protection," including, among other things, body armor and increasing amounts of armor on our vehicles. It eventually reached the point where, if little Johnny is killed and he wasn't wearing body armor, there is a good chance that some elected official or other is going to want to look into why. In those cases, any viable reasons either for or against the policy tend to get lost in the political catfighting and the troops on the ground get stuck with whatever policy is most politically viable, regardless of whether or not it is tactically viable.