"You've got to be able to act when it's necessary to act. And you've got to be able to act where the threat is"
About this Quote
A line like this is the diplomatic version of a door latch: it sounds procedural, but it’s really about permission. Lord Robertson, best known as NATO’s secretary general during the post-Cold War identity crisis, is speaking in the language of necessity to legitimize action that would otherwise look like choice - or aggression. The repetition of “act” does double duty: it projects resolve while avoiding the messy nouns (war, intervention, strikes) that trigger domestic backlash and international legal debates.
The first sentence (“act when it’s necessary”) leans on a moral alibi. “Necessary” is a magic word in security politics because it implies reluctance, as if force is the last tool left in a depleted toolbox. The second sentence sharpens the doctrine: not just act, but act “where the threat is.” That phrase quietly argues for forward defense and, depending on how elastic “threat” becomes, preemption. It’s a map-redrawing idea: danger doesn’t respect borders, so response shouldn’t either.
Context matters: late 1990s and early 2000s NATO was trying to justify operations beyond its traditional theater (Kosovo, then the post-9/11 shift). Robertson’s intent is to keep the alliance from becoming a museum of deterrence - relevant only to wars that no longer arrive with tanks and flags. The subtext is aimed at two audiences at once: adversaries (we can reach you) and member states (you can call this defense even when it happens somewhere else).
The first sentence (“act when it’s necessary”) leans on a moral alibi. “Necessary” is a magic word in security politics because it implies reluctance, as if force is the last tool left in a depleted toolbox. The second sentence sharpens the doctrine: not just act, but act “where the threat is.” That phrase quietly argues for forward defense and, depending on how elastic “threat” becomes, preemption. It’s a map-redrawing idea: danger doesn’t respect borders, so response shouldn’t either.
Context matters: late 1990s and early 2000s NATO was trying to justify operations beyond its traditional theater (Kosovo, then the post-9/11 shift). Robertson’s intent is to keep the alliance from becoming a museum of deterrence - relevant only to wars that no longer arrive with tanks and flags. The subtext is aimed at two audiences at once: adversaries (we can reach you) and member states (you can call this defense even when it happens somewhere else).
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Lord
Add to List







