Damned if we do, and damned if we don't. That is the position New Zealand faces on commitments to join the struggle against the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
Generally, those on the left of politics say stay out. The West helped create the unholy mess and more meddling just makes matters worse. Intervention mostly fails, as it has already in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
What about the risk of revenge attacks on New Zealand and/or New Zealanders?
And what, too, about the barbarism in other parts of the world the hypocritical West ignores?
The counter view recognises Islamic State is a different beast, using social media and recruiting from the disaffected in the West.
It will spread, as witnessed by this week's Coptic Christian beheadings in Libya and by terror acts of sympathisers in Western cities.
Its whole ideology is anathema, and its methods repulsive. How can people sit back and do nothing?
How can we not defend the values in which we believe?
Do we accept that mass murderers can go about their business without us helping?
There are also the realities of politics in an interconnected world.
Whether we like it or not, we are part of ''the club'' - an unfortunate term, to be fair - with Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States.
We, as a tiny nation in a brutal world, rely on others to help New Zealanders in trouble across the world, and we will need the backing of others if threatened.
While independence can and should be maintained, ties and some dependence remains.
For weeks Prime Minister John Key appears to have been thinking aloud about the pros and the cons, trying to get a feel for what is possible and appropriate.
There has been no official announcement, but the consensus seems to be that, given the military is already training in preparation, New Zealand will send up to 100 trainers in a non-combat role ''behind the line''.
This, of course, raises issues about the dangers of mission creep, and of who protects the trainers because no-one has faith in the Iraqi army.
It is, as usual, much easier for opposition parties.
Former prime minister Helen Clark was shrewd enough to keep out of the fighting in Iraq, but even she in the end agreed to deploy engineers there.
Back in the 1960s, Keith Holyoake minimised New Zealand's involvement in Vietnam as much as possible, while still keeping the United States on side.
Labour's Andrew Little has steered a smart line on the issue.
He has said IS is ''evil'', and that the best military response is to bomb IS targets.
New Zealand lacks a strike force so cannot help in this way.
Instead, it can provide humanitarian or reconstruction assistance.
The problem with this view is that air strikes only do so much.
They degrade and damage but they do not deal with issues on the ground.
Those on the dovish side of Mr Little, meanwhile, will argue air strikes, too, simply add to the instability, the resentment and the recruiting to IS.
New Zealand will be aware, as well, that Australia, our senior likely partner in Iraq, could have a different agenda.
Because Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is fighting for his political life, a foreign distraction could be useful.
Mr Key, however, has little to gain whatever is confirmed.
Realistically, a handful of trainers will be little more than a token of solidarity and support.
It is also hard to see much of a way forward in the Iraqi quagmire.
After all, trainers in their thousands did not do the corrupt South Vietnamese army much good.
What is likely to happen then is that Mr Key does a Holyoake, as it happens another pragmatist.
It seems he will run a delicate line, clothing New Zealand's involvement in altruistic words and high sentiments, while going along with what he sees as this country's international obligations and commitments.
