Couldn't it be that the wars are actually fought over resources, but are sold to the public of all involved countries (including the historians and philosophers) as being about status?
Note it doesn't have to be one obvious incentive. A government has many parties with differing incentives. But sometimes, a lot of those parties stand to simultaneously benefit from a war.
Basically, Hanlon's handgun[0], not Hanlon's razor.
--
Examples: WW I was the result of royal jealousy over who had better navy boats. WW II was fought when a whole cultural identity perceived itself to have loss of status after the fall of Austrian Empire. Vietnam and the cold wars had to do with the ongoing symbolic struggle for status between different factions of aristocratic, government, or corporate interests, etc. And all the mercenary forces enabling the conflict were interested in those resources as status symbols rather than any underlying need for or lack of resources.
Same with global water supply. If the question is, how does everyone get enough water, then it's a practical problem which war only hurts. But if the question is, who controls access to what water, then it's a matter of symbolic status and war is inevitable.
This is why the argument is tough tho, because natural resources are a primary status symbol, so we say "resource war". But I think it's important to talk about the distinction because the difference is life and death.
Realistically though, this is not the case. Although many wars are built on lies that may be believable at the outset, the public eventually tends to understand and the mood shifts. We have seen this in Vietnam and Iraq more recently.