“Maybe it is just a realistic view of profit seeking.”
Its a simplistic view that takes consequences and imputes the consequences as the cause.
Ikes view was concerned with (1) balancing military vs domestic spending needs, and (2) military spending that represented military needs, not spending just to reward the military industries, and (3) the military industries influence, via congress and the military, over those things. He was not advocating that the military industries were attempting to provoke us into war for their benefit.
Things have progressed a bit in 70 years.
Washington D.C. is now a major industry.
The D.C. metro area has a population of 6.4 million people.
All of those people don't just support war and its tools but a good many do.
These people are lined up at the Federal Hog Trough and working hard to make sure the tax payers keep it full.
Lobbyist for the war machine are working harder than most.
There is nothing un-Conservative about noticing that many in government associated with arms suppliers advocate the continuing of the forever wars.
Ever notice how supplying the Ukraine with more money for arms has no problem getting a vote but the Save America act does.