The Government is apparently now "considering'' its response to the United States' request for more resources in the global fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
The request came this week from US Defence Secretary Ash Carter to the 65 countries engaged in Syria or Iraq.
Prime Minister John Key said he did not expect to make any "dramatic change'' in New Zealand's contribution (our present Defence Force commitment is a two-year period training Iraqi forces in Iraq, alongside Australia).
The Prime Minister said we are only a small country already making a big contribution, and he wants to see what other countries will do.
The first gives reassurance; the second cause for concern.
This situation demonstrates New Zealand's classic dilemma.
We are effectively damned if we do and damned if we don't. Our close ties with other powerful countries offer much-needed economic opportunities - and protection, too, as a small, isolated nation.
However, there is a price for being "in the club''.
There are expectations that we will do our bit, and if others step up their military commitments, it will be hard not to do the same.
Mr Key is aware of public sentiment around foreign intervention - and the risks involved.
When it comes to IS, any involvement makes us a target, and compromises the very security offered by our bigger allies.
As part of the new "coalition of the willing'', we have already been named on IS' "hit list'' of nations.
No-one can envy the Prime Minister this decision.
The politics are far from clear cut, and the ethics even less so.
In the face of a ruthless, rampaging group of fighters prepared to die for their perverse crusade, the millions of Syrians displaced and many thousands slaughtered, and increasing terror attacks in the West, what is the morally right thing to do?
What is clear is that, if we decide not to increase our military involvement we should be prepared to commit to other significant action in the fight against IS.
If not more training or special forces on the ground, it could be intelligence work or a greater ambulance at the bottom of the cliff: taking in more refugees fleeing the violence, or increasing our humanitarian aid.
Mr Key says any decision on our commitment is likely to be months away.
Of course, the lengthy time frame might simply be to "soften up'' the public.
After all, he spun out the decision on our initial training deployment for months, and the end of the parliamentary year and Christmas is hardly the time to send troops into a war zone.
Whichever side of the fence New Zealanders sit on, we are already involved. IS does not work like a "traditional enemy''.
Its reach - because of its social media presence - is formidable.
It has caused havoc in Syria and Iraq.
It can attract disillusioned and easily influenced young men from any number of countries - including New Zealand - to join them in the fight.
It can attract vulnerable young women to become "jihadi brides'' for their militants.
And it does not need its own forces to invade foreign countries; it can all too easily inspire lone wolf attacks by citizens against their own people and way of life on home soil.
Defeating IS - and its methodology - will take a long time - if it is achievable at all.
Military might is but one part of what must be an attack on multiple fronts.
Cutting off the source of IS' wealth - its captured oil fields - and neutralising its internet presence are key.
Our influence on the United Nations Security Council must be used to encourage a political solution, too - even an interim one - that eases some of the social and religious tensions that fomented the violence.
But we would also be wise to prepare for the very real possibility that our "club fees'' might soon be going up.
