I'm not sure, as I've said, that I disagree with the premise that "most wars (or 'almost all' or 'all') have an economic genesis," but I wonder if we can define it properly to have meaning. Economist will argue that "all" human interaction has an economic (tit-for-tat) basis, and can be analyzed as such. (Anyone read Freakonomics?) They see this more as a means of analyzing motivations, though, than as a causus belli, per se. That, by the way, is how I would understand it. One could say that "we started the Iraq war to obtain oil" or one could say it was to "establish freedom" - and, of course, a society that is freer (economically-speaking) will make more of their resources available to the "world market." Either way it has an economic impact, good and ill. Is it economic freedom or exploitation?

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich