Rephase the following statement:

Kenneth Anderson presents an argument that I think would broadly be excepted as a utilitarian concept. Although danced around and not specifically conveyed in such a way. It seem a big part of his argument is based around the "ends justifying the means" mentality. His first point is that the current use of military weaponry may cause more civilian casualties than anticipated. Which intern, in most case, cause the local populace to turn on the source of this unneeded bloodshed. Its lack of uncertainty in precision creates more trouble in the end. Anderson argues that with the use of drones, the operators are able to get closer to the target without the threat of losing friendly life and thereby produce a more strategic, precise strike. Reducing the loss of innocent life. Although, at first glance this concept may not seem very utilitarian. Looking at the situation in which it is being applied it provides the greater good for the side making the strike instead of the ones living in the area receiving it. I think it all comes down one's own perception of benefit. He applies the concept of safety as well as precision. Anderson speaks of the decision making process in which the drone operator has essentially more leverage to pull the trigger than a pilot overlooking the objective or target. One point Anderson ends with is the unnecessary use of actual service members in these situations. A drone can provide a more precise and immediate strike on a target while at the same time allowing the service member to be at safe distance. And in this is where we really see the utilitarian concept show its head. The use of drone strikes provides the greater good for the side using the drones. In that instance the good out ways the bad and the ends justify the means.