Here's a little context about the number of active duty soldiers we're losing each year that you're probably not going to see on the evening news tonight.

Actually, less soldiers are being killed each year during the Bush Administration, during a war on terrorism, than we were losing during the Reagan or Bush Administration,

Ronald Reagan (1981-1988): 17,201 (2,150 avg per year)
George Bush Sr. (1989-1992): 6,223 (1556 avg per year)
Bill Clinton (1993-2000): 7500 (938 avg per year)
George W. Bush (2001-2006): 8792 (1465 avg per year)

If we're losing less soldiers per year than we were during the Reagan or Bush 1 administrations, when people didn't seem to think it was a crisis, are our losses really "unsustainable" or "breaking the military?" Although it's always tragic when any American soldier doesn't come home to his family, by any historical standard, the answer to that question would seem to be "no."

PS: If you're wondering why we're losing less soldiers per year now than we did under the Reagan or Bush 1 administrations, it's primarily because the military was significantly bigger back then and because a lot more of our troops were dying via accidents.