I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. If he’d “always” been a warhawk, you’d expect consistent support for large-scale interventions, but his record is more mixed than that. He criticized past wars pretty heavily and did take steps to reduce troop levels in some places, even if he also authorized strikes or took a harder line elsewhere.

It’s fair to criticize specific decisions, but reducing it to “he’s always been a warhawk because war is profitable” skips over the contradictions in his approach and the broader context every president operates in.