You literally said it was unstated. I.e. not responding to what was stated.

> There's a whiff of "science causes bad things" here, which is what I keep hoping isn't the unstated foundation of the pro-mosquito argument.

Yes, absolutely agreed we're talking about the 3rd order of questioning. In particular the question: can eradicating these mosquitos destroy a food chain that we end up caring about?

Not one of the links you've posted actually addresses this question, except maybe the Archive.ph link which is broken for me (feel free to re-post if you can).

The supporting argument for food chain effects is that when a food source is in an ecosystem for long enough, it will be exploited by something. This is a basic feature of natural systems: free energy doesn't just go sitting around for long.

The question is then if you remove this particular food source over the course of a few years, will alternatives take its place fast enough? You have not posted any evidence of this.

The null hypothesis should be no, since evolution does not typically operate on timescales like this. If 1) all the animals that eat these mosquitos just as easily eat other mosquitos and 2) those other mosquitos can easily breed to make up the difference, then sure! But again: you have not posted any evidence of this claim and it is not at all obvious it should be assumed.

Here are the arguments you and your posted links have made:

1. Mosquitos are bad (agreed)

2. We can kill just the ones that hurt humans (agreed)

3. There are other mosquitos (agreed)

4. Those other ones will take their place in the food chain (not evidenced)

5. Other food chain disruptions are happening anyway (agreed)

6. Therefore this one is probably fine (not evidenced)

You have not addressed the specific point of contention.