Chishti and his fellow-travellers claim that drone strikes are causing "anger" and "anti-Western attitudes" among Pakistanis. Leaving aside that such anger and attitudes seem easy to incite over any issue among a population susceptible to murderous enthusiasm at the opening of a mullah's big mouth, would he and his co-protestors prefer a couple of F-15s to drop half-ton bombs, which could well obliterate an entire village as well as the target? Or a clutch of Cruise missiles launched hundreds of miles away by submarines? In the interests of gentlemanly conduct, perhaps he'd like teams of Special Forces operatives to risk their lives assassinating terrorists at ground level, albeit shadowed by huge Lockheed AC-130 flying gunships whose massed firepower can turn walls into dust?

There seems to be some peculiar distaste for remote killing by consoles operated from bases in New Mexico or Nevada, although such missions are flown by trained USAF and seconded RAF pilots. They rely on actionable intelligence garnered by brave CIA or MI6 field operatives, so it is not the risk-free tactic that its critics facilely claim. Although pilots can go home for lunch or supper, and switch between distant war zones while they are working, they are under no illusions about the lethal nature of what they do, whose effects on human beings they see in real-time footage.

Most killing in modern warfare is done remotely, so calling this "Nintendo warfare" is banal. The US started using drones back in the 1970s, after 5,000 aircrew were killed and a thousand were captured or went missing in action flying missions in Vietnam. 

Nowadays, drone strikes are used because Pakistan is manifestly not in charge of large parts of the north-west, will not allow US forces to operate against terrorists who regard the border with Afghanistan as porous, and is unwilling to dispatch its ground forces into these lawless zones. How can the US share intelligence with sister agencies that routinely tip off the targets?