Those statistics prove nothing warfare or combat related
other than that military forces capable of large, out of area deployments require massive logistic and sustainment support. Currently, the only Armed Forces truly capable of such deployment are the US, France, the UK and Australia in that order. The Japanese could but have generally elected to not do so thus far. A few others, including Denmark, China, Germany and India are working up to it. Russia is a unique case with some capability.
The US Army that fought in WW I was essentially the old Indian fighting Army with a thin veneer of Philippine and Caribbean experience. It learned from that war that a larger tail ratio was needed for worldwide commitments and began an expansion of that tail. It was further developed after WW II due to worldwide commitments and has increased in proportion ever since because the basic support requirements for a given amount of geography and missions can only go so low, thus any cuts in force structure must disproportionately come from the tooth. Teeth? Tooths?
Also recall that all the Global Hawk, Predator and such operators are part of that support package as is the massive amount of manpower to keep a humungous number of airplanes and helicopters flying...
Paying much attention to bean counters is not conducive to fighting wars.