Destroying Libya and World Order: The THree-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution

This may be the worst-written book I have read. It is certainly in contention for that dubious honor. And I say that as one who agrees with almost all of the points Boyle makes. I was appalled at our invasion of Libya, and was shocked at the smug satisfaction with which our Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton, greeted the news that the revolutionaries we had abetted had murdered Qaddafi. Had George Bush uttered her infamous "we came, we saw, he died" the New York Times and the rest of the media would have never forgiven him. Nor should they have.; I regard the current chaos in LIbya, and the invasion of Europe by desperate migrants from that failed country, as a fitting repayment to NATO for that inexcusable war.And I am, as is Mr. Boyle, dismayed at the ease with which the U.S. and other Western powers have adopted the "Right to Protect",. whichpurports to give us the right to invade any country which isn't treating its citizens as well as we believe appropriate. I found his discussion of this perverted doctrine extremely helpful in further supporting my own views. As he repeatedly notes, it is nothing but new clothing for several earlier Western doctrines justifying invasions of countries we didn't like. My own view is that if one of our politicians wants to invade Libya or Syria, they should be free to do that, with a volunteer force of which they are the leader--first ashore out of the landing craft.What then, leads me to such a negative reaction to the book? Basically, two serious failings. First, the writing would have to get better to earn a grade of "atrocious." He is unable to refer to people of whom he disapproves--and there are a lot of them--without adding a derogatory modifier. From Reagan to Obama, every President is always referred to as a "Neo" something--neoconservative, and neoliberal seem to be his favorites. I lost count of the repetitions of those descriptions early on. It makes wading through a book like this a chore when the author won't assume that the reader is able to remember how much Mr. Boyle dislikes various of those of whom he writes.Which gets to the final point, that ultimately led to my dismissal of this book. Mr. Boyle is not satisfied with establishing that what was done to Libya was both foolish and unjustified. But this is not enough--he also insists that it, and many of the other incidents to which he refers, are evil to the point of being genocidal. I don't know whether they were or not. But I do know that hurling words like "genocidal" around doesn't prove that things were evil. It just makes the writer's job a lot harder. It's relatively easy to convince me that the invasion of Libya was a stupid and ill-thought out venture. But that doesn't make it genocidal, or even evil. Nor does it prove that those who pushed this idea were lackeys of Israel who hated Qadaffi because he was pro-Palestinian. Much as I dislike our Nobel prize winning President, I would need a lot of evidence to persuade me that he had evil motives for his ill-starred war on Libya.Mr. Boyle has a wealth of information about our dealings with Libya. And, as noted, I learned a lot of background that was of interest to me. But I doubt that this book will persuade anyone to adopt Mr. Boyle's conclusion that our Libyan policy since at least the time of the Reagan administration is motivated by evil designs on the country's well-being, coming from lackeys for Israel.One final caution: For those who insist on getting the book despite my misgivings, I urge that you skip Chapter 1, which is an extended discussion of "International Law." It is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the book, and involves an agonizingly long discussion of the Hobbesian view of the world and its systems. It is most definitely an arduous discussion, with no relevance to the average reader.

My 19 year old daughter was murdered on board Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Almost from the outset we have felt that our politicians (British and American) were not being honest with us and that Libya was, for some reason, being used as the scapegoat. I attended the whole of the trial and 1st appeal in Holland and the 2nd appeal in Scotland and that feeling was only confirmed. I came away from the trial feeling about 90% convinced that justice had not been done and that the judicial sysyem had been manipulated by the Politicians. Thank you, Mr. Boyle, for providing yet more solid evidence to show that we were right all the time.In November 1991 I was in the USA and was asked by a TV news team who I thought was guilty of my daughter's murder. I replied, "My daughter is dead because of US foreign policy. Whether you believe the official version of the guilt of Libya or that it was a reprisal for the downing of the Iranian airbus by the Vincennes, it was a revenge strike for US agression. It is the arrogance of power." I then added, "But you US policy makers will never be half as good at that as we British have been - we had over 300 years practice!!!".How right I was all those years ago.John F. Mosey - Father of Helga (aged 19) who was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie.

Everyone should read this book. It will challenge what you thought you already knew about Gaddafi and open your eyes to the gross injustice inflicted upon the nation of Libya by the big Western powers.

This book has an interdisciplinary approach---which brings together law, politics, history, and current events in an understandable manner. It also exposes the illegal actions of NATO and how the US has used this organization to further its own geopolitical agenda---not human rights, not international law, and certainly not the cause of peace. It is the kind of book that forces us to rethink the current nature of global relations and how those relations need to be reshaped.

A book well written especially at this period of new imperialism masked as humanitarian intervention. Explains a lot about American and allied powers biased policy towards Qaddafi Libya. Could not have come out at a better time than this. I found this book very informative.

Well researched and written, this books unveils an epitome of Western machinations to dominate and oppress Africans. It is a must read for anyone who wants to know the truth about what happened in Libya, not wallow in Western propaganda.

Thanks!

Francis Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. In this tightly-argued and convincing book, he defends nations' rights to sovereignty and independence.In Chapter 1 he explains the importance of using international law to analyse American foreign policy decisions. Chapter 2 examines the US-Libya confrontation in the 1980s. Chapter 3 studies the Reagan/Thatcher criminal bombings of Tripoli and Benghazi. Chapter 4 analyses the Lockerbie bombing allegations. Chapter 5 demolishes the doctrines of `humanitarian intervention' and `Responsibility to Protect', which breach the principles of international law. Chapter 6 studies the 2011 US/NATO war against Libya.Since 1969 the US state has schemed to end the Qaddafi revolution and seize Libya's oil fields. As part of this illegal effort, President Reagan reversed the USA's "longstanding policy that retaliation and reprisal were not legitimate exercises of the right of self-defense and, therefore, were prohibited by international law."The USA and its allies have consistently attacked countries seeking independence, even though respect for national sovereignty is the supreme principle of international law. In the 1990s, the UN, under US and British domination, acted in breach of its own Charter by sanctioning assaults on Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yugoslavia and threats against Cuba and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. NATO usually claimed that its interventions in other countries were legal because they were `humanitarian'. But international law forbids forcible intervention, whatever the rationale.The Security Council is bound by Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, the Charter's Purposes and Principles. Article 2 (3) says, "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." Article 2 (4) expressly forbids interference in the internal affairs of states on any grounds: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."The UN General Assembly's 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations says, "No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law."The International Court of Justice, in the case of Nicaragua vs. the United States of America ruled in 1986, "The element of coercion, which defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention, is particularly obvious in the case of an intervention which uses force, either in the direct form of military action, or in the indirect form of support for subversion or terrorist armed activities within another state. ... These forms of action are therefore wrongful in the light of both the principle of non-use of force, and that of intervention."As Boyle points out, "Under basic principles of international law, any government has the right to use force in order to suppress an armed rebellion against it, especially when the rebel terrorist army has been organized, armed, equipped, supplied, and directed by foreign military powers striving aggressively and illegally to overthrow that government."Boyle explains how Clinton's war in 1999 against Serbia over Kosovo, conducted under the claim of `humanitarian intervention', was in fact illegal. The war against Libya, conducted under the claim of `R2P', was illegal. The Afghan and Iraq wars, France's attacks on Mali and the Ivory Coast, the USA's drone attacks on Yemen, the US/British covert war against Syria - are all illegal..This is not a US war against Muslims - the NATO powers attacked and destroyed Yugoslavia too. They have not attacked their Muslim allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain. NATO's war is against any states asserting independence.

Everybody should read this to find out what we in the west did wrong. Then they should ask who assassinated Bernt Carlsson in the Lockerbie bombing, and why.

Interesting perspective on the decay of international law, by a lawyer who is clearly emotionally upset by the direction things have taken...

Le professeur Francis A. Boyle est un excellent juriste qui connaît très bien son sujet.J'ai totalement confiance à lui car il explique sans complaisance les raisons des conflits dans le Sahel et le Moyen-Orient depuis le Président RReagan à nos jours. Le droit International est très bien expliqué. Il dévoile les injustices, la propagande des mass-médias....Je conseille à tout le monde de lire ce livre, ça concerne la planète entière et vous ne vous laisserai plus enfumer par des mensonges.jCe livre mérite d'être traduit en francais et d'autres langues

shocking, this lesson should be taught at school