Hmm. I think global capitalism will most definitely be pushing for more cover wars, as you put it. But I think it’s worth going to a little more depth on what those cover wars are against, and what they’re covering for.
At the moment what’s more predominant in my mind is obviously NATO going into Afghanistan and Iraq, and definitely doing it’s best to purchase interest in Libya. On a direct level this is about maintaining oil dominance, on a less obvious level I think there’s something more at play. The US maintains it’s purchase as the primary economic powerhouse at the moment globally. However as their manufacturing industry is increasingly outsourced this power is diluting to other emerging super-states which do not fit so neatly into the “western democracy” pattern (notably India, China and Brazil are the main states that come to mind, Russia while much weaker than it was during the cold war possibly can’t be discounted completely). This is at the same time that economic unions are formed to compete with US economic hegemony (although it’s floundering at the moment, the EU with the eurozone comes to mind, and I believe the Organisation of American States and the African Union form a similar purpose?).
So what we’re seeing is possible a much less aggressive equivalent of the cold war, though with more direct involvement. China’s diplomacy involves building infrastructure in African states, and also gifting 14 fighter jets recently to Pakistan. The US goes into Iraq to secure oil and Afghanistan to control the construction of a gas pipeline (which could also be used to direct a route to Russia or China). Intervention in Libya also cannot be viewed in a vacuum to these actions, and the continued US support for Israel is plainly not purely ideological but very much about maintaining a secure and powerful ally in the region.
But it’s not about fighting terrorism (because anyone in power will hopefully not be so naive as to be unaware of the fact that their actions will cause “terrorism” and in itself is terroristic), nor anarchism (which is primarily a home-soil issue), nor communism (which is not currently an ideologically exporting threat). At the root it’s about maintaining economic power by preventing other states from developing, as well as maintaining a dominance over resources.
As technology advances and the media also becomes more accessible I don’t think there’s any doubt that mercenaries and drones will be used more predominately. It removes the loss of life factor from conflicts and maximises profitability. This is a really scary concept: without physical contact between the soldier and the enemy, while I haven’t seen studies on the matter, I wouldn’t be amazed if this leads to a dissociation from the ramifications of their actions. Warfare becomes a video game, where the combatants life isn’t at risk, and there’s a much lower potential for the public to develop a moral outrage towards the conflict. Because if the people who die in conflict aren’t “your” guys and the death toll isn’t “your” national identity then people don’t fuss so much about what’s going on.
If any of that makes sense, and is relevant to the question, instead of just a sleep deprived ramble …