Fewer awards are sign of fewer fallen warriors

Since World War II, the nation's highest military honor has been presented posthumously more often than not.[snip]

The nature of the Medal of Honor is that it very often has been presented to soldiers who take action against superior enemy forces, or who take action despite being placed in untenable positions.

The plain fact of the matter is that very few U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been forced to fight their way out of the kinds of impossible circumstances that Gordon, Shughart and Smith were called upon to face.

And for that - lest the American toll in dead and wounded be far higher than it stands today - we should be grateful, not concerned.

I'm not sure that I completely agree with this concept since I've read many reports of heroics that include a group of six (squad) fighting off 20 or more attackers. Maybe the difference is that the training the men receive, their equipment and their other tools make a 20 to 6 fight seem more like an even fight then in the old days. Or maybe its because they can call on QRF (quick reaction forces) to come in and even out the odds when necessary.

I'm not sure, but I agree that, with the MOH being largely awarded to the dead since WWII, it is a good thing there aren't more.
Fewer awards are sign of fewer fallen warriors