It is (apparently) per US policy to use weapons (like drone missile strikes) with high likelihood for collateral damage without taking such damage into account.
Drone strikes are much more accurate than conventional weapons. Nothing is 100% accurate 100% of the time, so using them vs. carpet bombing an entire neighborhood is a good thing, not bad.
> Drone strikes are much more accurate than conventional weapons.
Drone strikes are conventional weapons. They are more accurate than many alternative conventional "stand-off" weapons that seek to minimize risk to the weapon user, and less accurate (though perhaps more reliable) than many other alternative conventional weapons (a knife is far more accurate than a drone-launched missile, but far less reliable in many of the circumstances where drone strikes are used.)
We aren't going to send Seal Team 6 in to knife everyone we want to kill around the world.
Drone strikes are more accurate than F14's bombing buildings, and also safer for American soldiers (since they can't get shot down), thus they are a gain vs. a loss in terms of US personnel killed and accidental collateral damage (but this is still not the ideal 0%).
