1. The 'rest of the world' is an overly broad category, but the formation of negative opinions on US policy is inevitable almost regardless of what kind of action we take. Especially from other Western and developed circles where such agitation is popular but ultimately harmless. And that's what it really is: harmless. We are the hegemon and we attract reflexively negative sentiment, but it does not really impact our ability to act or our station in the world. Especially since we reap the advantage of being a democratic leader, with the capacity to hit popular reset with every new administration.
2. They aren't 'needless' they are the cost of waging war, a war that is in fact moral, just, and necessary. Aside from being a direct, vocal, and proven threat and enemy of the United States and our allies, these militants and terrorists are the most regressive enemies of civilization and modernity. In the name of the most basic liberal and internationalist obligations that I believe we should hold ourselves to we should be suppressing these people. In the name of everything from democracy to feminism to security. Moreover much of the world see's drones and our activities in the way that you describe, because people like you in the West insist on describing it that way.
3. The point is relevant since drone strikes primarily take place in NWFP, Waziristan, Swat, etc. areas that previously were subject to major Pakistani military offensives. Drone strikes even in isolation have inflicted very few civilian fatalities, but when related to the kind of violence these regions have seen it is positively minuscule.
3.