So the enemy's goal is to convince people on our side that using drones in combat is utterly beyond the pale, something only a monster would do. This prevents them from being developed, lest the military feel severe backlash even from within its own ranks, and ensures we're committed to human-flown craft while the enemy gets to field drones.
...it's not the enemy, it's anyone with any appreciation for the physical forces to which a warfighting machine is subject, and the economic factors at play that make production of those systems as disastrous to the nation employing them as not doing anything at all. Keep in mind, a large contribution to the collapse of the USSR was the incredible financial strain created by defense spending in response to the Star Wars defense system initiative.
It was an economic victory for the U.S. more than anything else. There is always a balance. It's just like the hoopla over hypersonic cruise weapons. Sounds horrifying. Until you realize the trumpet bell makes countering them easier rather than harder as long as you detect them early, because there is simply no way to reorient quickly at those speeds without being torn apart.
Further, no one is saying we should stick with manned fighter craft, only that they won't likely be the silver bullet everyone seems to think they will be, will be fraught with their own weaknesses, may not in the long run be cheaper than man operated, and may Coe with unforeseen doctrinal changes as the enemy adapts.
War is complicated, and rarely does who has the cooler gun perfectly translate to who wins or loses.
Just because drones make sense in a war between nations doesn't mean they can't be abused by governments against civilians. There is no shortage of governments that attacked their own citizens and with drones it becomes even easier.
