the Bush Doctrine that the United States has the right to launch preemptive wars
Unless the American citizenry, along with the western allies, oppose this militant attitude, it's not going to end well - whatever new term you call it.
Strictly speaking, preemptive war is a universally understood prerogative of every nation -- "preemptive war" is proximate self-defense against a specific, real, imminent threat before the attacking blow lands.
What Bush did is redefine preemption to include preventive war -- "self-defense" against a vague, general, nonspecific, distant potential threat that an enemy might, someday in the future, decide to attack (using capacities that do not even yet exist and which are themselves nonspecific, speculative, and distant potentials).
Preemptive war is problematic in practice, but generally regarded as an essential corollary of the right to wage war defensively; the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, OTOH, is equivalent to allowing the "self-defense" as a defense to murder charges because the killer had a belief that the victim might, someday in the future, get a gun and kill them and so they needed to kill them before that occurred.
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/05/06/combatantcivilian...
Your ignorance is middly acceptable because US media and other information reporters are biased or coerced into giving bad statistics about the issue:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-li...
Total civilian deaths are higher because there are more civilians.
Israel-Palestine is a special case because it is so one sided. I'm not very sympathetic to Israel (did Nelson Mandela recognize the right of the Afrikaner people to exist, and affirm the existence of South Africa as an Afrikaner state? This is what the Israelis are always going on about right?) but that's not really relevant to whether being a soldier is in general more dangerous than being a civilian.
Maybe I am addressing a different point to everyone else, but I think it's important given that deaths of soldiers are sometimes considered on a completely different moral plane to deaths of civilians, even though from a utilitarian perspective they are equally important.
But the answer is: No, I wish there weren't any soldiers to begin with. Dead being just the most common way they disappear, plus is always a political assertion the prime causative, so to avoid refilling wars with youngsters it's more effective to stop that.
You really ought to read different history books. This is akin to saying "statistically the sky is usually magenta in color".