This seems misguided to me. For one, even if you take the 6tn total cost for these two wars you're talking about 330bn a year for 17 years. A staggering sum to

This seems misguided to me. For one, even if you take the 6tn total cost for these two wars you're talking about 330bn a year for 17 years. A staggering sum to be certain, but the USG's expenditures measure in the trillions annually. For another, our immense military has almost certainly prevented regional conflicts (say Saudi Arabia vs Iran, China vs the rest of the South Pacific) and has allowed other nations to bring up their economies without having to worry about military spending (Japan, Germany). The net positives from a more peaceful world are very hard to measure but a lot of it is having such a large dog in the fight. More equality of armies means more regional conflicts. Finally as a measure of GDP US military expenditures are still less than several countries. You can point to our many follies because of course you can, that's simple and easy, and I'm not trying to defend them. But to say we've run amok would imply that they've done no good and I don't believe that to be the case. Like it or not under US hegemony the world's been safer and more prosperous than its ever been and a tremendous number of people have been lifted out of poverty globally. Is that all because of US hegemony? Maybe not but I'd be hard pressed to see a clear argument for why the world's defining super power would not have had some measurable role in the fulfillment of those measures.