I believe that the following key points have led to a significant reduction in combat losses over the past few decades:
1. Increased weapons technology: With continued investment in more lethal and precise munitions, these governments have allowed their troops to engage enemy targets, in some cases, without even risking friendly lives. Predator drone planes, global positioning guided munitions, increased range weaponry, and improved lethality of specialized armaments have allowed troops to engage their enemies from safe distances and risk very few civilian and friendly lives. These technologies are continually being advanced and specialized to improve the survivability of friendly troops and reduce collateral damage when necessary.
Better training: Specialized military training schools have drastically improved since the Vietnam era. Troops are now able to train for specific operations prior to engaging within that particular environment. Shared us of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) has allowed Soldiers on the front lines to pass along vital training needs for troops preparing for battle. Often times the enemy that the American, British, etc troops are facing have experienced very little training and have to rely upon their knowledge of the environment and combat experiences when making adjustments on the battlefield. This is often not the most advantageous means of preparing for war since their lessons are often learned upon their death and they usually have the disadvantage of outdated weaponry. The Iraqi Soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom for example told of their inability to train on their weapon and most only were able to fire 2-3 rounds per year. Unlike their U.S. counterparts who often fired several thousand rounds with their weapon prior to any engagement. Becoming familiar with your fellow Soldiers by training and developing a comfort level with the weapons is integral in molding a cohesive fighting group. By training hard, often, and with realistic battle field scenarios, the U.S. and other countries have been able to reduce potential casualties.
Coordination with local militias and training: The ability to work with police, military, and other friendly militant groups, the U.S. has been able to gain a strategic advantage over their enemy. The “home field” advantage is often lost for the enemy when their fellow civilians choose to side against them and share intelligence with U.S. troops. Over the past several years the U.S. has been molding Iraqi and Afghani Soldiers in an effort to develop their military and police organizations. These groups understand their enemy with much greater detail and their knowledge of the terrain is a combat multiplier when it comes to saving friendly lives. By allowing Iraqi and Afghani troops to conduct operations allows more U.S. and other allied troops to remove themselves from the battlefield and ultimately from becoming casualties.
Combined Arms Operations: As discussed earlier, air power and military technologies have come a long way since Vietnam. However, this is only one of several improvements to the military arsenal. Improved artillery, naval gunfire, satellite links, ground vehicles, and many other assets have allowed the Soldiers on the battlefield to call upon a plethora of options to destroy the enemy and save lives. A prime example of this is the use of up armored vehicles to prevent enemy explosive devices from injuring Soldiers. In the past most of these vehicles have been “soft skinned” and were vulnerable to almost every form of weaponry. Now the added armor allows units to move closer to the enemy, engage them decisively with several different types of arms, and reduces casualties.
Forward Operating Bases (FOB) and Improved Medical Operations: Probably the most instrumental improvement to the reduction of combat casualties is the ability to move medical assistance closer to where the engagements are being held. Many FOBs have been developed throughout the current theaters of war and have allowed Soldiers to establish extremely technical medical treatment facilities. These facilities are able to coordinate with helicopter assets to fly injured troops directly to their front door within minutes of being wounded. This was developed in Korea, advanced in Vietnam, and almost perfected in the current theaters of operation. Soldiers who would have bled out and died on the battlefield due to their injuries are now able to be quickly moved to state of the art facilities for care and treatment. Unfortunately these Soldiers will have the scars of war, but will most likely be able to survive their injuries.
These are just several of my opinions as to the decreased level of combat casualties during the past few decades. I told my wife the other day that it was amazing that there have been less than 10 Wisconsin Army National Guard Soldiers killed in all combat related matters since 2001. This is amazing since over 10k have been sent to combat operations during that time and severed over a year in harms way.

The perpetrators of much of the violence, and the locations of the violence, probably account for some (most?) of the decline in combat deaths. The violence does not occur on traditional battlefields. Matthew is surely correct that people do not want to challenge the US or other strong state militaries. Perhaps, however, this observation indicates that we need new kinds of capabilities, doctrines, and strategies for the violence of the contemporary world. Perhaps the military as traditionally constituted and trained, is not the correct instrument for the challenges of our era. We should take strategic re-invention seriously and question the future of all institutions, including the Pentagon. I say this as someone who deeply respects and values the role of our military forces in the future security and prosperity of our society, and the world as a whole.

Taking out the differences in terrain and general nature of the conflict, the US/Iraqi and US/Vietnam conflicts illustrate the relative differences in capabilities. In Vietnam the NVA/Vietcong had a relative safe home base of operations, heavier weapons, the ability to shoot down our airplanes, and significant external military and other types of aid from technically sophisticated industrial powers.

Thirty years after Vietnam in Iraq the insurgents (shia/suni/other) have significantly fewer military capabilities and no support from a large technologically sophisticated industrial power. Meanwhile US capabilities improved dramatically. To put it simply the NVA/Vietcong could probably kick the snot out of the insurgents in Iraq on the battlefield, but the US military of 2009 against the US military of 1973 would be no contest.

I also question the premise of the question a little, although military causalities are no doubt down in ‘90s and 00’s compared to 70’s and 80’s is the world really more violent? I would argue combatant and non-combat casualties are the measure of “overall violence”. Without putting too much thought into this, I think what we see today due to the pervasiveness of all types of media leads us to believe we live in more violent times.

The connection to democracy is interesting. Democratic states were less likely to fight one another, but they remained belligerent when confronting non-democratic adversaries. Democratic states also committed major atrocities against civilians — e.g. the Battle fo Algiers, My Lai, etc. Popular sentiment in the U.S. often made it difficult for American leaders to pursue political negotiations rather than military force in moments of international crisis.

Terrorism has long existed as a mechanism for the weak to spread fear among the strong. The prominent political assassinations in late 19th and early 20th century Russia are an example of terrorism within an authoritarian/monarchical system. Terrorists always seek to unhinge public opinion and undermine leaders. In a democratic setting, however, they also play to popular media images. Often, however, fear of terrorism inspires a reaffirmation of national power, rather than the disarray and demoralization that terrorists appear to seek. The popular American reaction to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 is a case in point.

All of this brings us back to the original question. If we are fighting terrorists with mroe soldiers than ever before, why are the battle deaths so low? Our War on Terror includes battlefields throughout the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan, Iraq, and many other venues.

More importantly, I want to share my thoughts on the issue of increased violence. President Wilson’s theory about democratic peace could be true for peace between nations…but could it actually increase violence towards civilians? I am wondering if perhaps the rise of terrorism has been linked in any way to the rise of democracy. Democracy means a nations policies are highly influenced by the will of common civilians. Terrorism is the use of violence against the common civilian in order to scare them into giving them what they want. Terrorism would not work so well in a monarchy or dictatorship as the person that can give the terrorist group what they want is not as directly threatened by acts of terror against the civilians, where as in a democracy the civilians are the decision makers so their fear has a direct influence on the descsion making of the nation. What I am trying to get at is that maybe in today’s world of increased democracy it is more effective for individuals/groups/nations to get what they want not through traditional combat but rather through violence against civilians and this is why violence has increased but combat deaths have decreased.

I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.

Smaller, more mobile Foward Surgical Teams, fully contained and equipped with blood products, anesthetics, medications, monitors, laboratory capability are positioned closer to the battle, enabling rapid treatment, triage and evacuation to full hospitals in relatively close proximity.

I would like to make three additional points: 1.The suicides of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and those discharged have increased significantly; For 2009, suicide may actually surpass combat deaths. 2. In WW II, 30% of Americans injured in combat died while in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is down to 10% due to these Forward Surgical Teams and rapid evacuation. As an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and an ex-USAF officer, I can appreciate this. 3. Batlefield deaths are only one metric of violence. If you count genocide, famine, death camps,disease, etc, the numbers will be staggering.