Drone attacks against specific targets are a necessary part of modern warfare

Whelp, this is going to be dissapointingly short.My opponent never responds to the first Blum et al. card talking about how drone strikes and targeted killings of terrorists only cause more to come up, increasing the number of terrorists for us to watch out for. Extend this out as a reason why drone strikes aren't working, therefore aren't necessary for modern warfare.My opponent also never responds to the second Blum et. al card talking about how drone striking terrorist leaders hurts our intelligence gathering abilities, which harms out abilities to stop terrorist plots long-term. Extend this out for why drone strikes hurt our ability to fight terrorism, therefore aren't necessary for modern warfare.She also never responds to the Hunter card talking about how drone striking terrorist leaders actually doesn't significantly hamper terrorist activities. Extend this out for a reason why drone strikes don't actually work, therefore aren't necessary for modern warfare.Also, extend out the Speigel Online card talking about how killing one terrorist with drone strikes took sixteen attempts and cost 321 innoncent lives just to get one terrorist. She responds to this by just saying that it's "collateral damage" necessary to stop terrorism, but a) we don't even need to be fighting terrorism right now, refer back to the Mueller evidence which says that more people die from drowning in their own bathtubs than from terrorist attacks, and b) just brushing off the deaths of 321 innocent people as "collateral damage" doesn't actually justify the use of drones. We shouldn't be contenting ourselves with a faulty method of offing terrorist leaders. We need a method that takes out the man we want to take out and only the man we want to take out on the first try. If it's taking sixteen tries and costing hundreds of innocent lives just to take out one leader, that's not #worth, that's inefficient and ineffective. We need to stop drone striking and come up with something better, not justify the murder of innocent lives as "necessary for the safety of America". All of these independantly work to show how Drone striking doesn't work and only makes things worse for us, which shows that we shouldn't be using drone strikes for modern warfare. If we shouldn't be using drone strikes for modern warfare, they certainly aren't necessary for modern warfare. Then, my opponent doesn't respond to a single claim I make in my second argument. Extend out the Mueller evidence which is showing how terrorism really isn't something to worry about right now because more people are dying from drowning in the tub than from acts of terror, showing how unnecessary drone strikes are right now. She also never responds to my alternative to drone striking, which is to send a small detachment of US special forces to support the local Pakistani military to limit cross-border travel and to help train local forces to better combat terrorism. This a) works to stop terrorism over the long-term, which means it's going to work better than the ineffective drone striking, and b) meets her criteria of not letting American soldiers die because it's putting them in a supportive role, meaning they won't be in the line of fire. This means that my alternative is better by my criteria as well as hers. So, to put it simply: my opponent doesn't really respond to anything I said in the last round, rather just restates her own points. My points are a direct counter to her points. Extend them out. I win.