> If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. Yes, they will come back if they're needed. The reason they're not needed is becaus

> If there's an operational need for them, they'll come back at an instant. Yes, they will come back if they're needed. The reason they're not needed is because drones are available. > Is that said as if things turned all the better for the increased arms race? It's said as in shotguns were not the horrific inhumane weapon they were made out to be, in comparison to all the more innovate and brutal ways we've figured out how to kill each other in the decades since. At least the shotgun stood a good chance of putting someone hors de combat instead of killing them outright; rifle ammunition was and is designed explicitly to cause massive trauma leading to death. > wheres the lives of 100s of innocent people on foreign lands are somehow not worth much. The Taliban kill far, far more Muslims than the West could hope to match. The same was (and now is) true in Iraq. The lives of innocents abroad are worth something, which is one of the reasons why America risks her own blood and treasure: Having a reasonably stable and secure Afghanistan, without Muslims killing Muslims every day, is flat-out good for America too. Likewise for nearby Pakistan, a possessor of nuclear weapons (and victim of recent Taliban attacks at Karachi airport); the insurgency there isn't just bad for the innocent peoples of Pakistan, it's bad for the rest of the world including America.