[wongarsu]

But usually we despise both suicide bombers and assassins, not congratulate the assassin on killing so few bystanders.

The question by GP is more along the line of "what if instead of spending lots of money to kill fewer bystanders we spent that money to reduce the number of people that are so dangerous to us that we kill them".

Of course we know that won't happen because building weapons helps US companies and building hospitals and helping local people in foreign countries doesn't.

[adamsea]

I agree. Or to take it further, if the US had even made a serious effort to help the country / people of Afghanistan live a better life, and build up some sort of institution, instead of invading Iraq.

Or, after even the terrible decision of invading Iraq, if the US had been halfway competent / invested in post-invasion administration...

[SubiculumCode]

Usually because it costs more to do so. Many times the local governments are corrupt, and U.S. money gets funneled to terrorist organizations or just pocketed, never actually helping the populace have better lives..