Very interesting, so you have a first hand experience with that cultural difference.

I have also read about the history of US military that it has stood out among other major military powers in its focus on keeping soldiers alive. In WW2 the US focused a lot on supper fire to avoid putting soldiers right in the middle of battle. US soldiers are used to calling in artillery strikes, bombing missions from planes etc to avoid getting into the meat grinder. Very different from Russian military which just sent waves of soldiers forward.

Interestingly this has kept US losses very low but also made a military very ineffective at occupation. The US focus on safety for soldiers has lead US troops to stay too far away from populations they are supposed to occupy and police and thus fault to gain trust and Intel among local population. The British e.g. in Basra did far better at this by embedding more with local population.

So I think every army has pros and cons, but the US army is most definitely not centered on the idea of turning their soldiers into cannon fodder. Just thinking of Vietnam how active they would be in getting wounded soldiers out with choppers. US has shown very strong commitment to the “leave no man behind” ethos.