Even in WWII to goal was "to make the other poor bastard die for his country." right?

Americans do, however, tend to be less cavalier than other nations with the lives of our soldiers. I believe this is a function of wealth, as much as anything else. We can afford to take the position that it is better to bring in fast movers and attack helicopters, spending $hundreds of thousands of dollars in air time and munitions to reduce 2-3 AK wielding insurgents; than it is to send a squad of infantry in that could accomplish the same mission for $25 worth of small arms ammo, but might take a couple of casualties in the process. We have the luxury of wealth to be judicious with the lives of our soldiers.

I saw this personally in the Gulf War when an Egyptian artillery officer I knew was soundly dressed down for expending the brigade's inventory of 155 rap rounds to take out the Iraqi artillery unit that confronted us; arguably saving hundreds of lives. He had spent too much money.

In WWII an uncle of mine was an infantryman in the 41st Divsion, that slogged across New Guinea in the early days of the war, often fighting side by side with Aussies. The aussies would send in infantry assaults to reduce dug in Japanense gun positions. The Americans would wait, bring up some fire power (he loved the 40mm bofors for frontline directfire on caves and coconut log bunkers; far superior to the 75mm pack howitzer) or call for arty or air support.

Bottom line is that being "casualty adverse" is a luxury we can afford. Others are not so fortunate.