Profit does play a huge role, but I think there's something more sinister going on with the bias toward military action. When confronted with massively complex problems like global warming or throngs of desperate refugees or other monetarily powerful entities taking actions that might hurt the currency, there is a desire to find scapegoats to blame and to take some sort if decisive ameliorative action. They know how to organize for war; issue orders to mobilize troops, move ordinance into place, activate complex communications -- to them all this feels like they're being decisive and taking charge, being in command.
After doing all this issuing of orders, memorizing the talking points worked up by the think tanks, figuring out the best ways to embed the reporters so only favorable news will appear, they can hardly decide it was wrong to go this way, admit publicly that they suckered themselves into a near fatal utterly wrongheaded course of action that can only create fatal potentially lethal blowback. Until they have a Commander In Chief with the brainpower and political power to the the warmongers NO, the invasions, drone strikes, bombing raids, black operations by trained "special" ops personnel, disinformation, assassinations, ecologically catastrophic destruction of ground cover, and the "collateral" damaging of bystanders innocent or otherwise -- all will continue until some mid level commander wannabe gets frustrated and says "Screw this namby pamby b.s., hit 'em with the big stuff, let's get this over with once and for all."