Here’s how it was covered for me.
Yes, the core training is about various techniques to maximize the chance the other bastards die for their country. Shooting accurately, using cover and covering fire, how to use various unfair weapons like grenades and rocket launchers and set traps and ambushes with claymores, etc. In the US Army, a good fight is one tilted as heavily in your favor as is practical.
But, at other points, the cadre talked about their experienced during deployments to Iraq. They talked about losing buddies and about how ultimately the reason they were still alive and not dead to an IED was primarily luck. You can try to spot IEDs but if the enemy does a competent job hiding them, fusing them, and builds them well, and sets them off at the right moment, you’re going to be unavoidably killed. Well, at this era, I understand MRAPs helped a tremendous amount.
In general every mission you would be sent on in the most powerful military on earth is one where you would be more likely than not to survive. Even in ww2, for the U.S. military the majority of soldiers in most dangerous missions generally did make it out alive. Heavy losses might be 10% of the troops killed or wounded, not 60%. There are some exceptions to this, heavy bomber pilots and submarine crewmembers had particularly poor survival rates. But historically it wasn’t anything like the losses the Soviets faced, where if you were drafted and born in I think 1928 you had better than 90% chance of dying to the Germans.