There is no doubt Houthi attacks on ships on the Suez Canal route are disruptive and costly. Shipping rates have climbed as schedules are disrupted and as more vessels take the long way around southern Africa.
New Zealand, as a nation especially reliant on trade and we as consumers, have more to lose than most.
The number of defence personnel being sent, six, might be as tiny as their likely contribution.
The point is to add to the tally of countries taking part in this "international" effort. The United States, as the primary proponent, can point to a little more legitimacy.
The Houthis, supported by Iran, have played their hand well. They claim their attacks are because of Israel’s Gaza invasion putting them on the side of most Arabs. Their profile and kudos rise in strife-torn Yemen and around the world. They are seen by many as justified rather than terrorists.
Anyone attacking them becomes linked to Israel’s side even if unfairly. This is despite New Zealand, unlike the United States, having backed United Nations resolutions calling for immediate ceasefires in Gaza.
That is one reason many nations, also frustrated by the Houthi actions, have been reluctant to join.
They were, in contrast, happy to band together internationally against Somali pirates and other nearby disruptions.
The United Kingdom is in there, guns blazing so to speak. Support has come from Germany, Korea, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia.
But France and Spain have been wary, and China and India have stayed clear. Bahrain is the only Middle East state in the group.
Saudi Arabia, despite having spent seven years bombing the Houthis, is also cautious, as is the UAE.
Thereby lies another issue. The attacks on Houthi military infrastructure can degrade capacity temporarily but, as the Saudis found, eliminating the threat is another matter.
Having served the warnings, the United States and its supporters felt obliged to follow through, while endeavouring to limit the commitment.
No-one wants the "mission creep" that plagued US interventions from Vietnam on. No one wants escalation.
New Zealand had earlier joined the statement warning the Houthis to stop or else. That put the government on the path to further commitment, to its own "mission creep".
This came to pass as Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Defence Minister Judith Collins lined up as the three big guns to make the announcement.
The dangers in the Red Sea, as has been pointed out, are not just to shipping but now also to New Zealand’s partially independent foreign policy and its broader reputation in the Middle East.
In this case, New Zealand was not forced to choose between China and the US because the Pacific and East or South Asia were not involved.
New Zealand has, nevertheless, clearly aligned itself with the US, a decision which spills over into other broader foreign policy.
As for the morass and mess that is the Middle East itself, this country might have been able to play a more useful future role as a respected and relatively independent party.
And another thing
There will be scepticism about what will come from the latest Commerce Commission investigation, this time into whether certain supermarket pricing and promotional practices complied with the Fair Trading Act.
The commission was responding to claims from Consumer NZ about misleading pricing, including around specials.
Consumer NZ collected hundreds of complaints from shoppers across all brands. It is all very well for the commission to identify problems across various industries and even, occasionally, take prosecutions.
But little seems to change despite the appointment of a Grocery Commissioner and both this and the previous government endeavouring to be seen to be siding with consumers.
