Do you really need B-52s, F-16 to bomb mud huts?

Now and again I read reports of a B-52 flying over some mountain stronghold in Iraq or Afghanistan and then sending some very sophisticated (and EXPENSIVE) bomb to kill a half a dozen insurgents. Or, I hear of a F-16 swooping in to drop bombs or send in a laser guided something for similar reasons.
I have a better idea. Have Microsoft and Google team up to develop the ultimate war game for the best video game people in the US. Then give them the responsibilities for launching drones from bases in Iraq and Afghanistan (from their own homes), finding the enemy and bombing or killing them. Heck, as much as some people like video games, you probably wouldn't even have to pay them. You'd probably have people paying to play the ultimate game!
Just give them a time (they'd probably have to reserve a time for all who'd want to play) they could "play," give them an area of responsibility, the weapons they'd need, and just think, they'd probably have all the insurgents taken care of in a few weeks. They'd probably have found Osama Ben Laden months ago. And, putting every vidoe game ace in the country on the project could probably be done for less money than one B-52 strike or certainly two or three.
In fact, the US probably wouldn't need all those air craft carriers over there--except to keep Iran straight. The drones could do whatever those planes flying from aircraft carriers do in Iraq or Afghanistan for pennies compared to what it cost to keep those big ships and all their sailors there.
Well, you could take this a long way--video game experts vs. B-52s. But, it certanly would make more sense than sending some huge expensive airplane to bomb a handful of idiots in mud huts. And, I'll bet those video game experts would be better than the B-52 crews!