Quite a few students asked this question this week, so with that in mind its probably a good idea to find out what a few smart folks think about the subject. It will be central to an upcoming look at foreign policy in the US, so its worth a look.
First off, I assume that when people complain that we are the world's policeman, they refer to the idea that we are expected to intervene when conflicts flare up around the world. I haven't been able to find data that shows how often the US responds to crises as opposed to other countries, so it would be helpful to have empirical proof of this claim.
But it is true that having the largest military, by far, in the world the US is in a better position to intervene than are other nations. $600 billion in military spending allows us to effectively control the seas, air, and space, which allows conflicts to be mediated on our terms, but it seems to come at a cost. Since we have the ability to intervene when humanitarian crises occur, it follows that many argue that we should.
Here's a link to debate on this subject from 2008 - it should still be relevant for us today.
The arguments in favor of the idea the the US ought to be the world's policeman centered on the observation that the world is a dangerous place and the predatory countries are destabilizing. Only the US - hopefully backed by allies - is in a position to keep the peace. And a peaceful world is a more prosperous world.
The arguments against the idea are that intervention can lead to anti-Americanism, and a backlash within the US of active foreign affairs. It is also not popular among the American people many of whom would prefer to spend money to improve mattes within the US. There is also a sense that we can do more harm than good when we intervene.
For more on the debate:
- BalancedPolitics.org.
- The world would miss the American policeman. (paysite)
- The US must not be the worlds policeman.
- What if the US stops policing the world?
- Debate.org.
