Your 1. is not the only spark of
the process you describe, with considerable
accuracy. E.g., the US bent itself all
out of shape in Viet Nam and did a lot
in Korea, and oil or assets of big US
companies were not saved or much
at risk or involved. But, yes,
some big US companies -- Ike's military-
industrial complex -- got big bucks.

And in Viet Nam, a lot of oil was burned,
and I have long guessed we burned enough
oil to enable the power of OPEC.
Keeping B-52 bombers in the air
24 x 7 in the 1950s also burned a lot
of oil.

Part of the US overreactions is
that from the President
on down, it's easier to play cover
thy ass by spending US blood and
treasure than to speak the often
sad, ambiguous, no good option truth
to the American people. E.g., in
Viet Nam, nearly no one in public
office wanted to open themselves to
accusations of "Who lost Viet Nam"
as happened with "Who lost China"
when Mao took over and drove Chang
Kai Shek to Taiwan. We finally
gave up in Viet Nam when nearly
every young person in the country
saw someone die in Viet Nam that
they had known in high school
and the demonstrations were too
big to ignore. Even then, President
Ford, at the last moment, tried
for another big chunk of cash
and supplies to Saigon. Congress
didn't go along, but Ford had then tried to put
the 'blame' on Congress. In some
of the earlier days, say, after the
Tonkin Gulf thing, there were only
a few voices in Congress warning that
we were heading for vast disasters
with half-vast reasons.

But, we should be able just to say
no to absurd foreign adventures
and hysterical, ineffective overreactions
at home; lot's of other countries do:
E.g., in Afghanistan, the EU countries
mostly stay out of harm's way.
In Gulf War I, there was a fairly
significant international effort
to push Saddam out of Kuwait, but
Gulf War II was essentially
just a US effort. Why? For Gulf War II
nearly all
other countries looked at Saddam
and saw a thug in Iraq and
concluded that he was just Iraq's problem.

The old remark, maybe from Churchill,
that "America always does the right
thing after trying everything else"
has some truth to it. We are too
eager to squander our blood and treasure
on absurd foreign adventures. And not
just foreign: Now the NSA, FBI, DHS,
and more are all going hysterical
running around in circles, stirring up
dust, and accomplishing next to nothing
good and possibly doing a lot of harm.

But as soon as someone rolls back the DHS,
the other party will be out for blood
at the next pressure cooker in a shopping mall.

It's an old story: In medicine it was long,
"The person is sick. We don't know why
they are sick. We don't know what to
do. But we must do something." which
was often harmful. So, a few terrorists
do this and that, take advantage of our
old silly policy to give any airplane
to any terrorist that asks, and we go
all hysterical and start bankrupting
ourselves and throwing away our Constitution.

Solution: Have the voters wise up.
Get that by better information from the
Internet. A current case is Syria:
We could sit here and debate for
hours which is worse, Assad or
some of, maybe the most powerful of,
the rebels. What do we want there,
Assad, in with Iran, wants to attack
Israel, a thug in his home country,
or some rebels that might lead to
an Al Qaeda takeover, turn Syria
into a base for radical Islam,
attack Israel, etc.? It's ugly
there; people are suffering and
dying; the US should do something?
My guess is, the US should do little
or nothing. The enemy of my enemy
is my friend? Well, not always!