This can't be right. The bulk of US defense expenses in the last 2 decades for instance have been in needless middle east wars that destroyed those countries, killed millions and enriched US corporations and their employees. It created power vacuums and destabilized entire regions that allowed the rise of ISIS and other extremist groups. There is now slave trade in Libya which was one of the most advanced countries in Africa before the US intervention. Massive immigration caused by these actions is taking a toll in Europe. How does this help global security?
A country's defense expenses are for its own benefit providing easy global market access for its companies, leverage, favorable terms and markets for arms for its own defense industry. All these benefit the US and its citizens.
There is a well documented history of military intervention under pretexts driven by business interests going back centuries with the latest being Venezuela. A country is being openly destabilized, millions will suffer, there will be increased immigration leading to more right wing extremism against immigrants, and more business opportunities for US companies with access to the largest deposits of oil in the world. How does this help global security, this seems to transparently benefit US interests at the cost of everyone else. [1]
Because, in general, maintaining the status quo (regardless of whether the status quo is good or bad) is good for perceptions of stability and security. Saying that American military might preserves the status quo of Western European / American global hegemony is not particularly controversial. Neither is pointing out that many many countries benefit from maintaining the status quo while contributing nothing to the force that maintains it.
This is not a justification of American military maneuvering, but simply an observation that many countries, individuals, and businesses benefit from it, while contributing nothing.
Your evil specter of big business is ultimately a distraction from the issue, because many non-American companies also got pretty good paychecks from American military involvement, despite them or their employees contributing anything to the United States's actions that gave them that money.
I'm unsure how an argument that attacks the ethics or morality of US action can at all counter an argument that US action maintains a status quo that benefits many people who do not pay for it.
"They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of 'empire'. They make a desolation and call it 'peace'."
A country's defense expenses are for its own benefit providing easy global market access for its companies, leverage, favorable terms and markets for arms for its own defense industry. All these benefit the US and its citizens.
There is a well documented history of military intervention under pretexts driven by business interests going back centuries with the latest being Venezuela. A country is being openly destabilized, millions will suffer, there will be increased immigration leading to more right wing extremism against immigrants, and more business opportunities for US companies with access to the largest deposits of oil in the world. How does this help global security, this seems to transparently benefit US interests at the cost of everyone else. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eW4ASIo3I