I don't because modern war is not like WW2. Casualty rates are exceedingly low. The US suffered 89,000 dead at the battle of the Bulge in 1945. In the entirety of the 15 year Vietnam war the US lost 57,000 dead. In the first Gulf war it was less than 500 dead. Same with the Serbian campaign. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was also quite cheap in life.

Guided munitions, drones, satellite recon and air supremacy has ensured that modern war is not that costly when the forces are lopsided. Gone are the days when you would amass 2000 guns to fire on a front and then charge positions. Guided munitions can rapidly and accurately destroy critical targets.

Now casualties would very likely be severe in a peer to peer war against Russia or China. But the US isn't fighting peers. They fight people with no ability to strike back like the Taliban or Shia militia in Iraq. So no. I don't feel great pity for them because they are not in pitiable condition.

Plus there's the tooth to tail ratio. Only about 20-27% of the military actually fights on the front. The rest are support personnel. This ration is very low in the US as its crammed with bureaucrats and other useless hires. That's how you get ''Veterans'' like David French.

The vast majority of US veterans have never seen a day of combat. Most combat is done by the air force, special forces and a few combat formations. Since most US wars are low intensity against weak opponents, very few actually fight.

Yet they are all treated as heroes for pounding a stone age army to the ground. They get free college, healthcare, pensions, housing...