That headline is quoted directly from an MSNBC “breaking news” banner.

You know the story. US drone strikes on Al-Quaeda compounds in Pakistan (Or is it Afghanistan? Does it really matter?) kill insurgents, Al-Quaeda officials, Western hostages, and perhaps others as well.

The drone program is under criticism, the President has apologized, the hostages’ families have protested, and there has been general uproar and hand-wringing.

Does this mean that if the insurgent compounds had been hit by a bomb dropped from a manned aircraft it would have been OK? How about an unmanned cruise missile? What about an artillery shell fired from a great distance away? Or small arms fire from a rescue team of US SEALS just outside the wire? Does it really matter? As Secretary Clinton once put it, “What difference does it make?”

We are at war with people who are trying to kill us. We have every right to attack their facilities and installations, which are located in remote places where it is impossible to gather complete and detailed intelligence. If the insurgents choose to keep our prisoners in their strongholds, or use local civilians as human shields and we have no way of determining this, should we suspend all offensive operations against them?

I don’t think so. In every war, there will be innocents placed in the line of fire, either by accident, or as a deliberate tactic. Although one would expect belligerents to take reasonable precautions against targeting them, it is the nature of war that there will be civilian deaths. But regardless of that, what is the fundamental difference between a missile dropped from a remotely piloted drone and one dropped from a piloted aircraft miles away from the target? Or an artilleryman laying his piece at an anonymous set of coordinates 20 kilometers away?

There is no difference. And I’m starting to wonder if the critics of drone warfare are more motivated by denying us victories than they are at promoting civilized and humane forms of conflict.