The Cycle of Violence Theory applies here. Using a strategy like drone attacks has certain and predictable consequences, namely an increase in opposition to our presence, and increased support for whatever group the intended victim belonged to. In other words, a strategist recommending drones does so with the express intention of escalating and/or prolonging armed conflict.
The only other possible explanation is that the strategist is an idiot who has never studied 4GW, That seems unlikely at best. The U.S. Government may be a bull in a china shop when it comes to foreign policy, but it’s not uninformed.
Accordingly, drone warfare can be understood as being a tool for (1) making political gains at home while (2) ensuring that the military-industrial complex has an enemy to fight for the foreseeable future and (3) politicians, using a perpetual state of war, have an excuse to continue to relieve us of our Constitutional rights in the name of security.
Think I’m too cynical? An armed combatant force does not continue to take the same action over and over unless some person or group in control of that armed combatant force is getting something that serves them. If it didn’t serve them, they wouldn’t continue to do it.
(promoted from the comments)