Several years before we stepped into Vietnam with the idea of saving democracy, this book foreshadowed our venal weaknesses and hubris. A classic. ( )

This I read when trying to understand what Viet Nam in the 1960s would be like. ( )

A very loose collection of episodes detailing the interactions of various parts of the American expatriate community and the diplomatic service of the USA with the people and politics of a fictional south East Asian country, Sarkhan. When you are finished with reading it, you are open to understanding why the vietnamese war followed its course to the American defeat. The coutry that such an exploitive and manipulative alliance felt comfortable in creating, was easily prone to any socialist approach to getting rid of the American prescence ASAP. The book remains a telling critique of the American prescence in the world at large. For the rest of us it is a cautionary tale. ( )

4/26/22

A connected collection of vignettes, all centered around the fictional Southeast Asian country of Sarkhan and the Americans stationed there by the US government. I honestly didn't think I'd enjoy this one at all, because war and politics are very much not my reading jam, generally. But these stories are so well told, the characters so well drawn, and the point of the authors so well made that, in fact, I loved it. I never would have picked it up had the book not been on the list of banned books I've been working through for ages. It was banned for political reasons, and it's not difficult to see why: Lederer and Burdick wrote the thing to draw attention to the ridiculous attitudes Americans had toward the people in SE Asia, their self-isolation once stationed there (all-US cocktail parties and only shopping at the commissaries and such), and the buffoonery of the official decisions and (in)actions that resulted. Very readable and still relevant. ( )

This book caused quite a diplomatic stir when it was published in 1958 and accused the American diplomatic community as being a bunch of ignorant , venal idiots who care more about living a luxurious life with lots of servants while going to elegant dinner and cocktail parties than advancing American interests abroad.

The book is written as a series of vignettes rather than with a structured plot, and the writing is not very good. But the authors got their point across, and sadly sixty years later, nothing much has changed. ( )

Chronicles the arrogance of Americans in Asia. Offers insights to the Communist style of fighting that led to the loss of Viet Nam. ( )

Yes, a how-to, and how-not-to, manual for winning hearts and minds in the Cold War, but the important point is that it was a brilliant inspiration to present it as a series of fictional vignettes. A genuine manual, or a non-fiction analysis, might have sold a few thousand copies and gathered dust in university libraries; The Ugly American was a multi-million copy bestseller which apparently remains in print. It had significant impact on politicians at the time. A concrete example of its own pragmatic philosophy. Cleverly conceived and entertainingly written. No need to be an admirer of American Imperialism to appreciate the authors' strategic approach.

4.5 stars. Better late than never for reading this. Best book club selection we've had in a very long time. I had to read it in paperback (not available for Kindle or audio), which was very hard on my eyes, but managed a few pages at a time.

The book brought back memories of the Vietnam era and taught me some things I definitely didn't know, having never really studied much about this war. It made me want to learn more....which, was part of the point of the book. ( )

A how-to on winning the Cold War in the Third World by winning "hearts and minds" with brilliant and multilingual American legates who would show the impoverished natives just how wonderful America really is. Reading something by William Appleman Williams such as The Tragedy of American Diplomacy would be a good corrective to the Lederer/Burdick brand of liberal-humanitarian imperialism.

Incidentally, the "Ugly" American was one of the authors' "good guys." ( )

If we have lived in a foreign country, we know what it's like. We can see ourselves being obnoxious. This provides us a mirror. ( )

I really liked this book! I can't believe that it was written BEFORE our major involvement in Vietnam! The descriptions of American blundering in Southeast Asia are just too amazing, yet true! The authors explain why the American way of doing things wasn't working, and why the Communist way was! Simple things, like speaking the native language, were just not required, and therefore led to a great deal of problems for the Americans working overseas. Shockingly simple! And the idea that no one had read books by Mao, yet could not figure him out - amazing! It's too bad our leaders didn't read (and believe) this book before our troops were committed! Wow. ( )

It is easy to forget about the fear present during the cold war time period but books like this are good reminders. Many of the suggestions made seem to more modern ears to be just common sense. The book seemed intentionally sensationalistic while at the same time making some valid criticisms of American actions outside of the U.S. ( )

Very insightful for leaders and those involved in foreign relations both at tactical and operational level.

This is a collection of related vignettes of the ineptitude of American diplomats and other State Department employees in Asia in the 1950s when Soviet (and Chinese ) communism was an imminent threat to Vietnam, Thailand, Burma and other countries in the region. The authors contrast the professionalism of Soviet diplomats, who always speak the local language and understand the country's history, with American political hacks appointed to serve as ambassadors. In this book, the communists are clever and driven, while the State Department employees, almost without exception, are most interested in where their next cocktail is coming from. Even worse are the French, who, as Southeast Asia is slipping from their grasp, fail to learn any tactics that might help them hold on (such as studying Mao's writings on guerrilla warfare.) Interspersed throughout are tales of a few Americans, such as a chicken farmer and an engineer, who engage with the local people, treat them as equals, and achieve significant if un-headline worthy progress, which is inevitably stymied by the State Department bureaucracy, which wants to see money spent on high profile projects such as dams or roads rather than on Rhode Island Reds.

This book is a compelling read, very clearly written, and it certainly draws you into its sense of outrage about how Asia was slipping from America's grasp, with the triumphant victory in World War II having turned into a series of defeats at the hands of the Communists. Though disguised, the authors state that all of this is true, though some stories are composites. There is certainly no reason to doubt that, although it can hardly be called a balanced account. Certainly a few things worked, such as the post-war reconstruction of Japan. And, as time would eventually show, the Communists would start to make mistakes too. I'm sure, however, that many of the behaviors still persist in a few of our foreign representatives today, and that's why even after over 50 years, this book remains a compelling, if somewhat stage-managed, read. ( )

This shows a clear picture of foreign policy. It could have left it on a depressing note, but left you with some thoughts on how it could be better, and so has a positive upswing at the end. For such a heavy topic, I thought it moved smoothly and had a hard time putting it down. Highly recommended.
( )

I'm not sure what prompted me to read this Cold War classic but I found it both dated and relevant. The Cold War is over, but many of the lessons Burdick and Lederer tried to convey in "The Ugly American" still need to be fully learned. The foreign service is more challenging and more accomplished at mastering languages than they found in the 1950s, but there are still too few speakers of the "hard" languages; we have moved toward the smaller, more appropriate development projects this novel holds up as exemplars of foreign assistance, but we can and should keep moving in this direction. And some problems, like vulture capitalism, were not even on the horizon in 1958. Still a worthwhile read. ( )

An eye opener ( )

A book of fiction which accurately portrays the political mistakes made years before the US entered the war militarily in Southeast Asia. ( )

I first encountered this book as part of an undergraduate political science class on American politics. Among other long and dry reading assignments, I found myself thoroughly engaged in the book and looking forward to spending time reading Lederer and Burdick's work. In fact, I'd have to say that it has been my favorite book since that political science class almost 25 years ago.

I have read it at least 20 times in those 25 years (often as a source for a paper I was writing, but also for pleasure). While this is not a typical "beach read" I have re-read it while traveling and at the beach on several occasions. This past week I was on a business trip and sleeping in a hotel room. This combination of factors is usually good for a bout of insomnia on my part, and this trip was no different. Lederer and Burdick came to my rescue yet again and provided a thoroughly enjoyable way to pass through several hours of insomnia.

The story(ies) centers on a fictional country in Southeast Asia named Sarkhan. The book's chapters compare and contrast the competence and incompetence on the part of the diplomats, politicos, military officers and ex-pats in Sarkham. Heroes include Ambassador Gilbert McWhite, John Colvin, and Homer Atkins (THE ugly American) -— all men who took the time to learn the culture in which they were being planted.

It is easy (now, with 20/20 hindsight) to see this book as a parable stemming from the Vietnam War. However, the book was written well before American stepped up its involvement in Vietnam (in 1958) and was purportedly read by President Eisenhower and responsible for many of the reforms that he introduced into America's foreign aid programs. The general thesis of the authors was that US diplomats (and other foreign station workers/advisors) who failed to study and adapt to the cultures they were entering, were doomed to failure (or worse). Worse still, the American bureaucracy wasn't interested in the opinions of the Foreign Service staff that did study and understand the cultures into which they were placed.

Given that this book was written at the tail end of the McCarthy era, the insights of Lederer and Burdick are quite exceptional (if fact, some government agencies sought to ban the book in Asia and in many ways that (failed) effort can be seen as one of the last "scenes" of the McCarthy era). Burdick and Lederer are at once, tongue in cheek, cynical and satirical in their views of American foreign policy

Every time that I read this book, I can't put it down. Despite its age, it is still a fine read and certainly has additional significance in today's world as the U.S. fights wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although some parts of the book are antiquated (in particular the parochial way the authors treat the few female characters (in particular the Marie MacIntosh character). However that small niggle can be forgiven to a book that retains its readability and relevance 50 years after it was first published. ( )

I'd heard a great deal about this book, so I finally picked it up. As a work, it was worth reading, but I wanted more in terms of character and time. I felt at quite a few points as if the story and or writing were being rushed; perhaps that was a stylistic maneuver, but it didn't work for me. If the story seems to be of interest, you might enjoy it, but don't set your expectations too high. The writing is there, but this is fairly forgettable nonetheless. ( )

Very original. Great read for anyone going overseas for any reason. A very important book, thus I rated it so highly. My experiences suggest this book is very true. ( )

Great early Cold War book.

Of note for us today is the concept they construct of many little pieces being the foundation of a winning foreign policy. They claim that in the mid-1950s, the Soviets were much better at this in SE Asia than the US. That is why they were able to win the Vietnamese and others to communism without (arguably) military force whereas the Americas and French were failing while using force. The authors claim that in the effort to secure the big picture--capitalism over communism--diplomats were missing the little things that could secure their victory--like simple capitalist advances (i.e. industry) in the countries they hoped to win.

Does this offer some insight into the War on Terror as well? Is the key here to understand those we wish to affect with a positive image of America by more fully understanding them and what they need to be successful and then using foreign policy to help them accomplish their needs? Seems like this could also extend as far as the immigration debate currently swirling around Washington. It seems Secretary of State Rice was beginning a move toward this kind of Foreign Service recently, but I have yet to hear how it will pan out in the long run. ( )

This book will forever change the way you think about American diplomacy. It helps you, if American, understand how we can come off as offensive/obtuse/naive to the world. ( )

Contains:
Lucky, lucky Lou #1 --
Lucky, lucky Lou #2 --
Nine friends --
Everybody loves Joe Bing --
Confidential and personal --
Employment opportunities abroad --
The girl who got recruited --
The ambassador and the working press --
Everyone has ears --
The ragtime kid --
The iron of war --
The lessons of war --
What would you do if you were President? --
How to buy an American junior grade --
The six-foot swami from Savannah --
Captain Boning, USN --
The ugly American --
The ugly American and the ugly Sarkhanese --
The bent backs of Chang 'Dong --
Senator, sir--
The sum of tiny things --
A factual epilogue.