With respect to the remote weapons operators, using drones and unmanned vehicles to "fight" a war doesn't count as warfare. The reason is that the country persuing this route has no skin in the fight. It is not risking its own people (while putting the population: military and civilian, of the target state at risk).
Tell that to the civilians who were too close to or were mistaken for military targets and killed. By employing these methods you are putting considerable resources into an actual war. Left unchecked these devices could easily kill thousands or millions - after all why couldn't the drones carry nuclear weapons? The people who these are being used on have skin in the fight and the skin does not have to be symmetrical for it to be war.
The other aspect of proper warfare is occupation. Without that, an attack is merely destruction of either people or property. It might achieve a certain, intended, goal - especially for a domestic audience baying for blood. But as a long term, inter-country conflict, without an occupation to produce long-term changes in the mindset of the "enemy" population, it fails.
Thankfully this is true today, provided you dont just slaughter them all and move in. But I have a feeling we are about half a century and a decade or two away from automated occupation. We will have drones and unmanned vehicles and many fully autonomous robots of war making 24/7/365 never ending occupation cheap easy affordable and without possible loss of life to the dominating side. What could be more humiliating than living under the rule of automated machinery that is just itching to kill you at any second for little or no reason?