I think you ' re missing the point . Obviously they are doing it because it ' s profitable . Did he ever imply it isn ' t ? He ' s more arguing how unethical and predatory it is . <| sep |> The definition of war has severe judical implications . People committing acts of aggression in a war are protected by the Geneva Conventions and similar agreements , people committing acts of aggression outside a war are branded terrorists or mass murderers and are held captive , tortured and killed at will by most states currently involved in conflicts . A legitimate war must be signed off by the state government and key politicians , and follows certain conventions and rules of engagement . On the other hand , if you redefine war at will , you might suddenly turn a mere criminal act into an act of war , justifying much more severe response . Which is pretty much what the US has done , e . g . to legitimize attacks on foreign territory during the War on Drugs or the War on Terror , without being in a declared , legitimate war against the owner of said territory , which actually is a most severe violation of international law . So on one hand , redefining war could legitimize actions we do not want to legitimize and offer protection to people we do not want to be protected , on the other hand it could legitimize even more interventionist politics .