Rarely do accidents have anything to do with training.
I find that a very strange comment when the opposite is true. Solid training prevents actions and attitudes that lead to accidents. Very rarely do the wings fall off an aircraft in a way that the pilot has no way of dealing with it. In most cases a scenario will present itself to the pilot where they call on their experience and training and make a decision. Training is supposed to cover the gaps made by lack of experience, that is if the pilot encounters something outside their experience then how they were trained should get them through. We all have had those 'scare' yourself moments where you tested your abilities, training will give you the little voice that tells you to bug out before it gets fatal, you might still scare yourself, but that feeling that somethings wrong, go back, is probably something triggered from your training days.
So we all know proper training will give you the physical skills to be a good stick and rudder pilot. But, proper training also involves instilling an attitude. If the instructor takes risks during training the candidate will be likely to take risks and so on. If the instructor pushes weather during training, the candidate is likely to do the same, with much less experience. Then there is just instructors who wash over critical things like weather awareness, dealing with high traffic, how to increase situational awareness and free up excess capacity. It might be that they are inexperienced or just lazy, or chasing money and not taking enough time for proper ground instruction to cover these things.
So when you consider that a large amount of accidents are pushing weather, end of daylight, and so on, these are all things instilled in training as an attitude. Landing with excessive crosswind, tailwind, accepting speed deviations when landing in performance critical airstrips. These are all results of training, both skills and attitude. Botching an engine failure, stall spin accidents, are all skills based errors, where the pilot has placed themselves in a scenario training would have said don't go. Even a lot of mechanical failures in flight can come back to a lack of training in pre-flight procedures, walk around effectiveness and attitude towards the health of the aircraft in general. Pilot took off with water in the tanks, pilot took off with the wrong tanks selected, pilot took off with something wrong... which afterwards was obvious and showed a lack of thorough pre-flight checks. Running a tank dry and crashing (multiple recent events) is directly a training issue, improper techniques and discipline instilled, taking off on a runway where too much is going on, again an attitude and awareness issue.
Why do we say after these events that the pilot needed "re-training", it's because they were lacking in these areas. A good attitude will have the pilot seek re-training when they know they are rusty, whether it's self education in books or practice, or going as far as booking a flight with an instructor for a re-fresh.
Some things a pilot may never be really tested on in life until a few thousand hours. So we are not just talking about someone fresh out of flight school either. This is why instructors learn about primacy and how pilots tend to revert to their original training in stressful situations.
With the right ATTITUDE, a pilot, combined with training and experience will avoid the situation that leads to an accident. And yes, ATTITUDE can be taught.
BTW military pilots are not trained to be 'killing' machines, quite the opposite, fighter/bomber pilots are trained to survive and make independent decisions in fluid situations, yes there is obvious a component that will teach you how to deploy the weapons on board to maximum effectiveness, but there are many considerations before this happens. The training is focused on survival, and getting home after each mission. Modern military aircraft are expensive and will not be thrown away in battle for some blood thirsty kill fest, especially if you are in the non combatant aircraft, which make up most of the air forces, such as transports/tankers, special operations and surveillance. Most of the training and operational control will be to avoid the enemy where possible, just like a civilian avoids enemies like weather...
Ground forces are a different matter, front line ground forces and Spec Ops are trained to kill, and face to face if necessary, this is a very different concept to dropping a missile/bomb from a remote location and has very different mental repercussions.