Niall Ferguson and American empire

"You do not have enough armed young men abroad, it seems you have too many armed young men at home" were the words Niall Ferguson used when addressing students at the University of California, Berkeley, to describe one of the limitations of American power. I was given a book written by Ferguson, called "Empire, How Britain made the modern world" for my birthday, and later decided to Google the guy to find out more. Though some of his views are refreshing in an academic environment that is so critical of American influence in the world, there is a part of me that is in resistance to many things he says, such as the above quote. For Ferguson, America is not fulfilling its responsibility as the world super power. He argues that American strategy in Iraq did not take the responsibility for nation building seriously enough following the ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime. Furthermore, Ferguson argues that America has the wealth and the power to play a more dominant role in the world, but hesitates and pursues only a half hearted foreign policy. Though I would rather see the exportation of Western values, with America preserving its position as world super power, I am hesitant in believing that this should be achieved through the use of force. China, for example is gaining power in the world broadly through economic means, through investment in developing areas of the world such as Africa and South America. Furthermore, America's use of military power abroad in recent years has only generated more hatred and anger towards the West. How then should America preserve its power? I believe Ferguson does have a point from a historical context, and this is what worries me. It seems, America is the first empire to not express its power through the means of conquest, as did empires of the past such as the colonial empires of Europe. Could this mean that America is the first benevolent empire? Or does America simply disguise its conquest through the spread of liberal democracy and capitalism? This and other questions come to mind. For example, do benevolent empires stand a chance of lasting long in a world where nation states are free to do as they please, with the luxury of there being no higher authority capable of enforcing international law? I suppose only time can provide the answer to this particular question, though I do hope that it is the western values of democracy and freedom that prevail in the ever persisting struggle of ideas.