I dislike slippery slope reasoning. I dislike being tossed about by emotion driven arguments, that somehow a particular tool doing the task makes a moral difference.However, I do have some qualms about increased used of drones in warfare. I think it dehumanizes the process. Let's say some day we can replace ground combat troops with robots too. Now we have a scenario where we can fight with zero casualties for us. So what's the big deal about going to war? Let's invade everybody! All the while forgetting that there is a serious and terrible human cost to warfare. As awful as it sounds to say, casualties on our side serve a very necessary purpose of reminding us that war is an absolutely horrific process that we should be avoiding at all cost.
But I really have not found it in myself to disagree that the distance we put between our decision and the outcome carries a huge risk of our society/country losing sight of the weight of that outcome. There is far too much in our nature that drives us to sweep those outcomes under the rug and out of mind, even non-government agents ( Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes | Danger Room | Wired.com ). So ultimately I share these deep qualms about this use of the drones, certainly as we presently handle them and talk about them. That the short-term benefit, and there is no denying that it exists, will come with so very unpleasant longterm ramifications.
Obama is young enough, too, that he just might live to see in-person the reaping of the ill crop from what his administration is sowing here.