As Prime Minister John Key and the Government mull New Zealand's specific responses to Islamic State and terrorism threats, it is worth noting the complexities of Iraq and Syria and the severe perils of venturing into those hostile lands.
Despite horror at the actions of IS fanatics and the need to protect communities from their barbarous ways, the difficulty of the mission has quickly become clear.
While air strikes helped slow IS advances, tactics have changed and it has become apparent that ''boots on the ground'', one way or another, will be necessary.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi army is spineless and dispirited and the Kurds have their backs against the wall and lack firepower.
Turkey is ambivalent about whom to help and Syria is an unholy mess.
The various allies are giving support with various conditions and it is hard to be optimistic about where this will all lead.
Even United States President Barack Obama has changed his tune and is now speaking of long-term commitments.
The problems are not going to go away quickly. At least one analyst has talked of a 30-year war.
What was to be an emergency response is quickly turning into something very much larger.
It is hardly ''mission creep'', more mission transformation.
Against this background, Mr Key appears to have been softening up the public for more than just humanitarian contributions.
He is trying to play the balancing act of appearing independent while currying favour with our allies, particularly the United States but also Australia and the United Kingdom.
In the world of realpolitik and when one is a small nation potentially at the mercy of large powers - even if no threat is on the horizon at present - the argument goes that it is especially important to stand with other countries.
Former prime minister Helen Clark recognised this when New Zealand troops, under a United Nations mandate, went to Afghanistan.
Her government was, nevertheless, able to stay out of the 2003 Iraq invasion despite undoubted behind-the-scenes pressure - in hindsight an extremely wise stance.
Mr Key has now to play this cautious balancing act, trying to keep New Zealand's involvement in the quicksand of the Middle East as minimal as possible, while satisfying diplomatic pressure and international responsibilities.
Mr Key would also be wise not to rush through passport changes on potential ''foreign terrorist fighters'' as the Government takes a hard line against those wanting to fight for IS or those returning from Iraq and Syria.
Here, there are both matters of principle and practicality, even as New Zealand endeavours to follow the examples of Australia and Britain.
It appears previous law in this area, enacted in haste, is insufficient.
Bustling through more changes after a four-week review, even if just ''a patch'' while a wider review of intelligence agencies takes place, is another recipe for poor law.
It could very well have unforeseen consequences and undermine our rights and liberties in significant ways.
Who and how will decisions be made on people to be denied re-entry?
What about those who genuinely repent having served with IS and who might be its best detractors?
Can returning ''New Zealanders'' be left stateless? How can ''evidence'' from overseas be used to establish whether someone fought for a terrorist organisation?
Just how much evidence will be needed before passports are cancelled, as is already happening?
As well, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, with reference sometimes made to those from the West who fought with the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War.
And, as New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said, if the matter was so urgent it should have been brought up during the election campaign.
Protection against terrorism and terrorists is important and an open-as-possible debate in this area is prudent.
It is far too easy to overreact.
Such responses simply play into the hands of terrorists.
Cautious and carefully considered measures are best in current circumstances.
