There really was no choice: Prime Minister John Key's trip to Afghanistan had to have been a "secret".
Indeed it is standard operating procedure for all high-profile politicians and personalities who visit the volatile and dangerous region.
As Mr Key has pointed out, not only would he have been at risk were the visit to have been publicised in advance, but the safety of accompanying members of the armed forces, his staff and journalists covering the trip would have been endangered, too.
Still the cloak-and-dagger element of "the mission", the carefully observed news embargoes, and the spread of media representatives selected to accompany Mr Key, has meant the visit has been a dramatic public relations coup.
To the many popular faces of Mr Key has been added that of a leader not prepared to send New Zealand troops "to a destination I am not prepared to come [to] myself".
And further confirmation of a prime minister who likes to "see for himself" - to gather information or insight first-hand to enable better quality decision-making.
He told accompanying reporters that he wanted to make his own assessment of the work of the 70-plus SAS team on active duty in the country, and of the 140 troops in Bamiyan involved in reconstruction activities.
He would also have been wanting to get a feel for how the Nato mission of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is faring.
It is now nine years since allied forces invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taleban regime in the wake of the devastating al Qaeda demolition of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre and the attack on the Pentagon.
New Zealand has had a lead role in the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) based in Bamiyan province since 2003, and played its part in the War on Terror by providing Special Air Service units between 2001 and 2005.
In August last year it was announced that an SAS team would be redeployed.
That force is scheduled to leave in March next year and the PRT troops this September.
General Stanley McChrystal, the ISAF commander, took the opportunity of the New Zealand Prime Minister's visit to air the desire that this country's military commitment to Afghanistan be extended.
While Mr Key has been generous in his praise of the efforts and quality of the New Zealand forces in the region, and their achievements, he has remained non-committal on the question of an extension, citing domestic factors "with the Rugby World Cup and all sorts of other things".
Further to such domestic questions, Mr Key and his advisers will be weighing up a number of other factors.
Is the military effort getting any closer to its goal of enabling Afghan forces to take control of security in their own country? The indications are not positive.
Mr Key will also be taking advice on political stability and the long-term prospects for the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
This controversial and unpopular leader seems to have achieved the feat of alienating large sectors of his own population as well as a number of "friendly" Western leaders concerned about the role of corruption in last year's elections.
The war in Afghanistan is also becoming more unpopular by the month in parts of Europe, with fissures emerging in the 46-nation ISAF effort.
The Netherlands, which lost a government over the matter, will withdraw it troops on August 1 this year, and resistance is growing in Germany and to a lesser extent France.
The economic problems afflicting the European Union and a lack of conspicuous and permanent progress in the war against the Taleban will not help with solidarity over the occupation.
Will New Zealand wish to be involved if the consensus crumbles? That may depend on the extent to which the Government sees a continued presence as being helpful to other aspects of the relationship with the United States, by far the largest military presence in ISAF.
It might also consider that while New Zealand maintains an army with a specialist fighting force which requires, from time to time, the mettle of actual military experience, the Afghan deployment is possessed of a logic beyond those of good global military partner.
But whether the occupation and the work of the ISAF is headed anywhere but towards a stalemate - and thus whether New Zealand should recommit troops towards its mission - is the burning question.
Mr Key is right, at this point, to remain non-committal.
