I don't think this is anything new. The US was casually bombing people during the Vietnam era with little or no attention from the media. What got attention was the campaign as a whole, mostly after the fact. Individual actions rarely got a mention. I would also be careful about conflating foreign military adventures with domestic spying. While there is some crossover, balling everything into one big problem makes change impossible.
A standard defense by those who support a status quo is to link everything, to state that any change in one area must involve other changes to any number of other programs. It is a delay tactic. Debate spirals upwards until people are talking about bringing down the entire military-industrial complex, not the specific of how drones are being used in a particular conflict. If you see only an edifice it is because they want you to see an edifice. It keeps them safe from specific questions.
A standard defense by those who support a status quo is to link everything, to state that any change in one area must involve other changes to any number of other programs. It is a delay tactic. Debate spirals upwards until people are talking about bringing down the entire military-industrial complex, not the specific of how drones are being used in a particular conflict. If you see only an edifice it is because they want you to see an edifice. It keeps them safe from specific questions.