This is exactly what I have been eluding to in a lot of my posts. I do not think that it is a responsibility the US really wants, that is where I differ from the article. I do think the net outcome is the same though. No one else can or is willing to police the world, the USA has inherited the position by default from the rest of the world community. I have said in previous posts that the US may have to continue an occupation of Iraq indefinitely, and to decrease the liklihood of terrorist attacks on the homeland it will consequently be forced to engage the entire Middle East to diminish those threats. That is why I have said all along this is going to be a long ugly war. Mostly because once started, America will not feel safe until all bastions of threatening nature are weeded out. If war comes, there will be a period where as I said earlier, the USA will feel targeted just like Israel, and woe to those who think the USA will not summon all its wherewithal to counter that. The next logical step for the USA to take is neutralization of those threats. There will be no choice.
One thing the article does emphasize and I agree with, mostly out of inference, is that the USA is not a conquering nation just for that sake alone. If that were the goal, Mexico and South America are both relatively easy acquisitions. I agree with Fergus51 that this has been thrusted on the USA by default....now let us see if power still corrupts.