But it also seems hypocritical. Because they aren't being attacked, are the other methods okay? In terms of raw brutality, drones are hardly the worst thing on

But it also seems hypocritical. Because they aren't being attacked, are the other methods okay? In terms of raw brutality, drones are hardly the worst thing on that list. Points about cost-per-life taken also ring hollow, the U.S. military budget is virtually unlimited, it's not cost sensitive in that kind of way. Drones offer marginally more safety for operators, but no theater the U.S. is engaged in or is likely to be engaged in is likely to offer resistance to any of the other methods. And other methods also offer similar safety margins for operators. Ship-to-ground missiles for example, offer virtually the same risk as drones. I'm not saying fighting drones is a pointless argument to make. Each of the methods is open to criticism, but by only attacking one, it reeks of a kind of protest fadism - of losing the plot. Is the problem killing people, or is the problem killing people with drones? Here's an alternative scenario for why drones are actually popular with hawks, and it's not safety or direct cost: they offer vastly longer loiter time and better real-time surveillance over an area compared to any other method or group of methods, which means they provide greater targeting and attack opportunity on the off-chance a difficult to find target presents itself. To go with your analogy, by not attacking the entrenchments, it signals to the hawks that it's okay to keep sending raiding parties, because they'll eventually end up fortified. I appreciate this discussion by the way.