What is your favorite rationalization for the U.S. drone killings of civilian non-combatants?

[Lurks Often]

71. I answered other and explained my answer

"If using the military is justified then innocent people are going to die, it has always been that way and it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future."

and that "Using artillery, cruise missiles or laser guided bombs, all of which have more explosive power would result in even more casualties."

and why using troops isn't especially feasible "As for using troops, aside from the increased risk of US casualties, there is a time factor. Using troops, they have to gear up, be briefed as to the situation, transported to the target area and deployed. It is highly probable that the target would have left the area before the troops could get there, even by helicopter. That does not take into consideration the higher political costs of US troops publicly operating in Pakistan."

In other words, if we need to use military force, then under the circumstances, which are it not feasible to use ground forces, other methods are even more destructive, then yes, drones are a method which accomplishes the goal of using military force to achieve a military objective, while eliminating risk to US troops and MINIMIZING civilian casualties. I have already stated that innocent people always die and that I am not happy about it.

I also noticed that you didn't answer MY question, which was "Do you have an alternative that allows the military to target hostile combatants while avoiding civilian casualties in populated areas, while accepting the brief time frames to engage those hostile combatants, we'd all like to hear it."