Here is why the world needs the US as its policeman: someone has to do it. Do we want it to be Putin?
In each city and town, there is the recognized need for a local police force. It is not even a question. Should that police force be privately run, or a government function? The answer to that is well established: it is the function of government to provide law and order.
At the state level, we have state police forces. Again, this is n0t strongly debated.
What about the world level? Is there something different that says no police presence is needed? What sense does that make?
For the same reason that states need a police force, the world needs a police force. The only question is who would provide it. If we had a world government, that would be the answer. But we don’t have a world government. Is the United Nations then a suitable surrogate?
I say “no” because the UN does not sufficiently exhibit the characteristics of what we believe to be a lawful government. It is not an elected body, and is representative only to the extent that the governments of it members are representative. The majority of its members are not representative governments but are typically totalitarian of some form. The UN in fact promotes a totalitarian system of global management and global socialism. (see Totalitarian Global Management). Further, the members often are in fact our enemies, and would like nothing better than to see us and other members destroyed.
Thus my line of thinking leads to the conclusion not that the Obama administration has said it does not want to be the world’s policeman, but that the Obama administration is saying that it wants Putin and his ilk to be the world’s policeman.
For the above reasons, I believe that the US should rightfully assert its role as world policeman, as it is the “last nation standing” with both the wherewithal and moral character able to justly fulfill that role.