The George W. Bush administration was hardly the first to act according to that point of view. Just about every country that has held significant power has at some point fought wars of aggression.
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".