MixedThe Washington PostThe Syria imbroglio looms large for Andelman, but it is just one part of a book with much broader ambitions. He wants to explore the phenomenon of red lines, track their past and present use, and distill some understanding of when they work and when they fail. As he moves from the particular to the general, he sketches a mostly dystopic world where dangerous lines are proliferating as the existing international order collapses. \'There have never been more red lines at any one point in history than today.\' It is an arresting claim, but the author does not explain how he reaches it. He employs the term “red line” profligately but without a clear definition. It refers to physical borders in some contexts. At other times, he uses it to mean strong national interests or zones of influence. In still other situations, it seems to refer to international rules and norms ... One constant in Andelman’s account is a focus on military conflict, actual and potential. It is tempting therefore to view his fixation on multiplying red lines as a claim that the world is more conflict ridden or violent than in the past. If that is indeed the argument, it’s not necessarily correct ... At its best, the book serves as a competent and thorough primer on conflict or potential conflict zones around the globe.
