Decisions are made with respect to potential collateral damage, but there's little that can be done in certain instances where terrorists are embedded in and moving around civilian populations. There are clear ROEs on this sort of thing, although things do go wrong if there's bad intel involved and the suspect is either no longer there, mistaken identity, or there are more civilians nearby than the intel suggested. That's why these things are carefully scrutinized before they give the go ahead (and yet its still not an exact science and yes people do die). There is however a massive difference between specific targeted killings of terrorists during war time and the indiscriminate carpet bombing of civilians that took place in generations past and even more so during the great wars and in the century before that.There are still tonnes of mistakes, bad intel and in some cases a lack of any care about potential collateral damage. You can say the intent is always to kill terrorists only but the reality is that decisions are made without regard to potential collateral damage. So the moral question is still there. For me at least. I don't think the decision makers can be absolved of all guilt simply because the company line is "we only intend to kill terrorists, any civilians are just an accident, sorry". And then you can get into much more tricky moral quandaries. For instance deals made with warlords who abuse human rights, overlooking crimes from dictators, strongmen, royalty because some feel it is in the geo-strategic interest of the US to mollify human rights abusers, etc.