Judging by the content of the article I get the sense that he didn't choose that title. The gist seems to be that some previous wars helped focus our values and priorities of spending, and that recent wars lacked that focusing aspect. There is no spending argument in the article, which is good because econ 101 tells us that war spending doesn't increase demand and doesn't create jobs.
However, the author's theory doesn't point to any solutions, so it is not interesting. I could also point to many other factors that may have changed US (and global) values and priorities aside from wars, so I don't find this theory compelling in itself either.
However, the author's theory doesn't point to any solutions, so it is not interesting. I could also point to many other factors that may have changed US (and global) values and priorities aside from wars, so I don't find this theory compelling in itself either.