SPIEGEL:

Mr. Ferguson, in your new book titled "An Empire in Denial," you argue for an enlightened American imperialism which, in your opinion, should bring order to the world. Now it is precisely this power that has created a mess in Iraq.

Ferguson: During the invasion, the United States behaved like an empire, while failing to recognize that an empire needs allies. The British global power, in entering into its alliances, always tried to avoid such isolation.

SPIEGEL: But you have always supported the Iraq war yourself?

Ferguson: I was even in favor of attacking much earlier, because no one could be certain that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, after all.

SPIEGEL: You claim that a global power must set its own rules, and may not allow itself to be hampered by international bodies.

Ferguson: The UN needs the United States more than the United States needs the UN. After all, who ultimately ended the genocide against the Bosnians and the Kosovo Albanians? It was the United States and NATO. In both cases, the UN failed miserably.

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, American imperialism has experienced many a failed adventure, in Chile, Guatemala, and El Salvador, for example. It was certainly no champion of human rights in those places.

Ferguson: That is precisely the question: Why is it that such a strong superpower has such a mediocre record on foreign policy?

SPIEGEL: Well?

Ferguson: In the past, the United States has only been successful when it committed itself to a country for the long term. That was the case in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Things start to go wrong when the superpower only becomes involved for the short term or indirectly, through local puppet governments.

SPIEGEL: The Americans have just announced that they may withdraw completely from Iraq by the end of 2005.

Ferguson: They would be leaving a catastrophic situation behind.

SPIEGEL: So the United States has an empire, but is not prepared to act accordingly?

Ferguson: It could be more successful. On paper, the United States is three times as powerful as the British Empire ever was, both militarily and economically. Nevertheless, we continue to experience these failures, the most notorious being Vietnam.

SPIEGEL: What is the US doing wrong?

Ferguson: Its plans are too short-term. As soon as the Americans intervene somewhere, they already start thinking about packing their bags.

SPIEGEL: The Iraqis themselves are pressuring the Americans now. Do you foresee any further mistakes?

Ferguson: First we have the economic deficit. The fundamental weakness is that the American empire is based on debt. Without tremendous Japanese and Chinese investment in US government bonds, the US economy would not expand. And then there is the fiscal deficit.

SPIEGEL: So you are saying that the United States is much weaker economically than it appears to be.

Ferguson: Precisely. Secondly, there is an occupation deficit. One cannot manage empires if the people refuse to live in the colonies, and there are not very many Americans who want to live in Iraq. They don't even want to go there for six months as reservists, and only about 250,000 troops are available for overseas missions.

SPIEGEL: Doesn't your concept of a good empire gloss over the bloody foundation on which it is usually based?

Ferguson: I certainly do address this issue. In contrast to the Marxist interpretation of history, however, I believe that the British Empire, between 1850 and 1950, was generally a good thing, that it promoted free trade and brought about international stability.

SPIEGEL: Has Great Britain ever been able to get over the loss of the Empire?

Ferguson: It has by now. But its imperial reflexes continued to play a role into the 1980s. No one questioned the wisdom of sending the navy across the Atlantic to drive the Argentines out of the Falklands. That would not happen today.