You seem to be arguing this from a Obama policy stance, which was like an indefinite remote culling of Islamic extremists as and when the opportunity to drone them came along.
You could argue about the short term efficacy of it long into the night. I know people who have argued, convincingly, that the US avoided a further Afghanistan-like experience in Northern Pakistan by preventing AQ and affiliates from ever managing to set up permanent bases there. Of course occasionally they got bad intel and bombed a school or a wedding, and the perception of the remote attacks within the countries themselves is overwhelmingly negative, but who cares about a bunch of brown people eh? In the long run these places will only stop becoming recruiting grounds for extremists with sustained investment in the kind of people who aren't going to use it to wipe out an ethnic minority that isn't them.
Here's the rub though: Even if you had ideal conditions to fund and maintain democracy, economic conditions in Syria, Pakistan etc. are unlikely to ever get better than they already are. Population pressures and climate change are going to hit these places the hardest, we're beyond the point where those factors aren't going to have serious consequences now. Which means they're always going to be poverty-stricken war-torn hellholes that are deeply resentful of the West. Which means that maybe, remote bombing forever actually is the best option. That's pretty much been the US military's line of thinking for a while now.