By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.
Perhaps if they live in Ukraine, but otherwise that looks like a tough sell.
But, if I may, I'd like to challenge your premise somewhat as well. Which is that militaries exist fundamentally to provide "stability and protection".
To be clear, yes militaries are a necessary evil, but they are evil, not good. They exist "because the other guy has one", but then because we have one, we need to use it.
With a few exceptions (ww1, ww2, kuwait) US military adventures have been the problem, not the solution.
The last attack on US soil (Pearl Harbour) was close to 100 years ago. Yet the US military budget is 5 times everyone else combined.
So, I'd argue, the US military does not exist to provide "stability and protection (to US citizens)." It exists as a way of projecting US policy, both as a threat, and occasionally in practice.
9/11
I excluded 9/11 though because it's not a military action, wasn't rebuked with military action (at the time) and wouldn't have been prevented with military action.
It is best described as a terrorist attack. The prevention of which is a security function, not a military function.
The existence of a military did of course big a military response, one being an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the other being a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan which achieved nothing.
I see them more afraid of military power becoming commoditized (raging a war coming down to a straight economic calculus, more so than even it is now) with very little ethical control. Having people in the cockpit pulling the trigger was a line to cross.
You're focusing on the danger of sitting in the cockpit, they're focusing on the danger of having no one left actually thinking about pulling the trigger. I don't see the two as conflicting, you can have a drone with still a human making the decisions and being accountable on each of the strikes.
Not having domestic people die is uncrontroversial, making the military accountable is a way bigger challenge, so I'd see putting a lot more thought on that part to be a healthy stance.
In particular sense's point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40082550
> There's an inflection point where technology accrues too much power to a ruling class, such that no amount of unrest or revolution is able reset the social order.