Why is that a red herring? There's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that America's activities on the Af-Pak border have been wholly counter-productive. A drone strike might kill a terrorist, but the collateral damage creates an immense amount of hatred towards the US. If drone strikes are creating more terrorists than they're killing (an entirely plausible hypothesis) then the answer is probably to stop drone strikes and try something else.
This isn't some wishy-washy liberal argument from a clueless civilian - Gen. McChrystal makes pretty much the same case against drone strikes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrysta...
And we followed up by blowing up the target's funeral figuring the bereaved where fellow operatives.
Quite a way to win hearts and minds...
I suppose, we could count the deaths to see who has the better part of the asymmetry.
1. Stop selling weapons to terrorists for decades.
2. Stop toppling democratically elective governments and propping up dictators.
3. Stop killing children with vaccination programs.
4. Stand away from drones and identify yourselves and go onsite to find militants.
5. Stand away from civilians and don't run the financial operation of your global hegemony through downtown office towers.
6. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent people at black sites.
7. Stop killing for a President who openly advocates killing family members of the enemy.
And I will ask another question: why bombs? Why remote drones? Why is it impossible to use other means? The assassination of Osama bin Ladin was carried out by soldiers on the ground, after all.