I just finished listening to Obama's speech. For the most part, the narrative was a beautiful affirmation of pluralism. My only reservation regards the bellicose posturing towards Iran. However, given the domestic pressure he's encountering, I'd hardly expect him to state otherwise. The problem stems from a systemic obsession which transcends Obama.
If they had limited drone strikes to that particular region, the practice would not be as objectionable; although, their use even in Pakistan should be reduced. But the Obama Administration expanded drone warfare to unprecedented levels in various theaters where intelligence may be highly deficient. And for various reasons, the extent of our drone strikes might be counterproductive and inimical to American interests even if the short-term gains appear greater.
You're presenting a false dilemma, though. We would not use ground soldiers instead of drone attacks. We would conduct fewer attacks. One of the hallmarks of drone strikes is a lowered cost of engagement. Consequently, drone strikes are used in situations where traditional means of warfare are unfeasible. This could be beneficial, but it also invites injudicious attacks where the normal means of warfare would restrain behavior.
