A complicating factor is the phase of the war during which you are using these machines: 1- during the initial assault (bewegungskrieg, manoeuvering battle) or 2- during the next phase (securization, pacification, "occupation", terr hunt, protracted urban fight, or whatever you want to call it)
During phase 1 the threats are more intense but actually you do not need as much protection as during phase 2. In phase 2 the threats are less intense but the exposure is magnitudes greater, and more importantly any personnel losses become politically unbearable in western democracies. (worsened by the fact that you cannot simply squash the threat because collateral damage would also be unbearable in our west)
To oversimplify: Namer is designed for phase 2, whereas Bradley is more for phase 1.
If you are going to just destroy some stuff and go home right away, à la GulfWar1, Bradley is adapted. If you are trying to change the régime and educate the population to some sort of democratic way (which is how US lefties have re-defined "victory" in practice), then you definitely need the Namer.
It doesn't mean that the Namer can deliver the end result of establishing democracy in some backwardistan, that is a political undertaking, not something that military tools can provide. It means that without Namer you don't even have a chance to try it.
One man's opinion.