That has never been the case, even when the US has suffered bad losses because of the ROE. In Vietnam the ROE cost the US vast amounts of lives and resources, and the ROE not only didn't change, but breaking them led to severe repercussions.
Bullshit. The US couldn't even be arsed punishing soldiers for slaughtering and raping civilians in Vietnam (look at who was called a traitor after My Lai), so lets not pretend ROE violations were a big concern.
As to more recent examples, the ROE exist because of the political desire to minimise negative news stories in return for nominal decreases in combat effectiveness in circumstances with low direct threat and no severe consequences. In short, risking a few US casualties in return for avoiding civilian deaths makes sense to someone in the context of Iraq/Afghanistan.
If, for example, the Chinese tried to invade the west coast and the ROE on visual range only fire was likely to influence the result of the conflict then it'd be dropped immediately.