When it comes to war, always follow the money

> Article alleges it is not external threats but corrupt political interests that drive ever higher US defense spending. But correlation is not causation and this link is unsupported,

I think the charge that it's an unsupported thesis is itself unsupported, when that thesis is advanced by military generals and DoD insiders as a result of their experience or analysis.

> especially when no analysis of the un/reality of the external threat is offered

The specifics of the external threat don't change the dynamic of a threat being fabricated or exaggerated to boost spending.

> There is some low-hanging fruit here around Iraq so not bringing that in leads me to question the quality of this article.

It could be a word count thing. But I guess the article was quality enough to require a careful and determined rebuttal from yourself. Although it seems you would be unlikely to accept the article's thesis if you felt it was defending China, so I think your questioning the quality of the article would be something we could assume would happen without question. Making it not an actual signal of quality but rather of your ideology

> It is harder to make that case with the Cold War or the PRC vs its South China Sea neighbors so perhaps that is why this aspect of their argument was not pursued.

But what is the real threat presented by China today, or by the USSR before? If it's such a hard case to make for the non-threat thesis, I respectfully request you give the easy argument for its antithesis. Just 1 sentence will do, unless it's too much to ask?