Can MRAP deployment in papua maintainable?
Isn't something like that kind of fuel hungry?
That's the matter of logistics. If we take fuel consumption as a limiting factor, our current approach to mobility in Papua; helicopter, technically making operational costs there much higher anyway. So on the ground, the troops use civilian-grade vehicles, but the alternative solution is airlift, which is more expensive and uses more specialized fuel. Both "combination" makes the casualty rate higher and at the same time, operational cost remain high.
Use armored maung or armored ATAV, nimble and give enough protection.
Is there a need to use "Mine Resistant"? Is there threat of land mine and IED?
I think even Bushmaster will be cumbersome in Papua's mountainous terrain. At most, something with a size closer to Oshkosh M-ATV, or (heavily modified/armored) Pindad Komodo will be a much better option.
I personally prefer Komodo to ATAV or Maung. The latter seems to be too lightly armored and obviously prioritize weight reduction and mobility, rather than protection. "Protection" is the main take here, light or no armor vehicles are a ripe target for an ambush, and even if the rebels are completely incompetent, one or two lucky shots are enough to kill or wound personnel. Also having RCWS is important, as to not expose the troops to gunfire, and having an electronic weapon system is preferable to using the naked eye (ATAV or Maung is not optimized for this).
On the other hand, I kind of -probably- see @HellFireIndo 's perspective. He might think that in order to prepare something akin to escalation of conflict, which might also include IED and stuffs, we better have some mine-resistant armored vehicles there.
The idea is protection in general while having an IED-resistant profile is a bonus. Because it seems like the trend is that all armored vehicles nowadays must be IED-resistant, hence the craze with V-shaped hulls and such. Currently, KKB only ever used raiding tactics, they haven't adopted explosives yet (though not impossible to happen someday). My main concern is the risk the troops experience during an ambush, civilian SUVs cannot protect against this and they must fight on an equal footing with KKB (which is a preventable situation).
SUV is very lovable and preferred in Papua because of the terrain, using SUV is practical to be used to move back and forth for daily use its better compared to APC. Maung is basically just Hilux (SUV which is nice), modify current maung and replace the glass with bullet proof glass, put add on steel plate at important place like doors etc (or just make the whole body bullet proof).
That's the problem with the so-called "logistics dictates strategy". We are concerned with one logistical difficulty and end up taking more avoidable risks because of it. SUV is used because the user simply thinks "vehicle is for moving stuff around", hence neglecting other aspects, namely military effectiveness. As for Maung, I think they haven't released the armor profile yet, so I am not sure of their protection. Though compared to Komodo they are lighter and have a longer range, perhaps also simpler logistics, but of course, less capable in combat.
war. 
