Re: Sorry Cori, I respectfully disagree...
But the worst that happens is you shoot someone accidentally. That's quite bad, but it's better than following them home, dropping a 500lb bomb through their roof and killing their wife, children and extended family in the process.
Thankfully, that isn't what happened or how drone strikes are scheduled. Certainly it'd mark them as a person of interest and they'd be followed (likely from a drone camera) - the intelligence opportunity would outweight the benefit in taking out a single spotter after the fact.
When a drone lobs a bomb into a house (with - inevitably - a fuzzy number of occupants, with unknown identities), you risk enormous collateral damage.
Fortunately, they only bomb houses where there are known to be terrorists hiding. Yes, it is hard to account for collateral damage, but then, if daddy is a terrorist and insists on coming home at night, well, then daddy is a moron who has chose to put his family at risk. They have chosen to let him.
You can't simply allow terrorists to escape because they seek to use their own families for cover. If they choose to endanger them, then that is their choice. The drone pilots do their level best to reduce collateral damage, because when dropping a 500lbs bomb, there will always be some (same as the poor sod calling his mum that gets a bullet through the face).
then you'd fly in teams in helicopters (bypassing IEDS) for targeted snatch/kill missions.
Worked real well in Somalia, no? Blackhawk Down is a very prettied up - turn disaster into victory - illustration of why that doesn't work so well as a plan. On paper, its fine, but in the real world, its way better to send a drone.