I just don't get the controversy.<p>Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se?<p>Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, perhaps the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be ended tomorrow. So why don't we discuss those?<p>Drones seem utterly irrelevant:<p>1. Do drones cause <i>more</i> civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? If anything it seems that they inflict fewer. Thus focussing on this aspect actually <i>hurts</i> their case.<p>2. Do drones terrorize civilians <i>more</i> than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? I honestly have no idea, but the answer doesn't seem obvious.<p>3. Do drones make the US <i>less safe</i> than a traditional infantry based occupation? Again, I've got no idea.<p>4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an <i>increase</i> in respect for human life.