It was as predictable as it was inevitable that the arrival of the first dead soldier home from Afghanistan would raise the issue of New Zealand's continued role in that country.
It was equally understandable that the father of Lieutenant Timothy O'Donnell should, in the immediate aftermath of his son's death under hostile fire in Bamiyan province - where he was part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team - voice his opposition to any suggestion that the mission there should be curtailed.
"It would be a waste of Tim's life if we pulled out now", read one headline as the news of the tragedy broke.
Mark O'Donnell, Lt O'Donnell's father, is entitled to that view.
He and his family had just heard that their son, brother, friend had made "the ultimate sacrifice".
Of course they would not want that sacrifice to be in vain.
One does not tip-toe across people's grief lightly.
The death of a son or daughter is every parent's worst nightmare, and the fact that Lt O'Donnell's occupation carried with it dangers and hazards far beyond the norm, will not have lessened the shock and the deep sorrow his family will feel.
But while it may be harsh to say it, the opinion of the family as to the merits of the Afghanistan operation does not make any decision to keep New Zealand troops there in the longer term the right one or the wisest; nor does it, in itself, give any more force to the views of the soldiers.
Sending young men and women of the armed services to do battle in foreign lands is about the most sombre and weighty decision a government can make.
It is, however, the responsibility of the Government to make it, and not that of the army hierarchy, the soldiers themselves, or their families.
The Government must be clear about its objectives - short term, long term, strategic, military - for involving its citizens in such matters of life and death.
Lt O'Donnell was a member of the PRT, about which we have heard only good things.
Their deployment has not been as controversial as that of, for instance, the SAS, for two reasons: first, their main role as a reconstruction unit was helping to rebuild infrastructure and, in the process, doing their best to win hearts and minds; second, Bamiyan has been one of the most stable regions in the country.
That, it seems, has been changing, just as security across the country is deteriorating.
Two days ago, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission reported civilian war deaths in the first seven months of 2010 had risen by 6% over the corresponding period last year to a total of 1325.
The commission reckoned that 68% of these deaths were at the hands of the Taliban and their allies, 23% were ascribed to Nato or Afghan government forces, and 9% were indeterminate.
At the same time, June proved the bloodiest month for foreign forces in Afghanistan since the Taliban were overthrown in 2001, with more than 100 killed - this despite a 30,000 US troop surge.
The recent large-scale leaking of classified US documents by website Wikileaks indicated that casualty figures for Afghan civilians may have been significantly underestimated.
At the weekend, the murder of 10 medical aid workers, eight foreign and two Afghanis, in the remote Parun Valley of the Nuristan province about 260km north of Kabul is a further indication of either a rampant lawlessness or pathological hatred for foreigners - even those demonstrably committed to helping local people.
All this bloodshed is not without cause or consequence.
The battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan appears to be being lost - as it has been repeatedly over the history of this rugged and unyielding country.
Prime Minister John Key, for the moment, appears to be advocating staying on.
His reasons do not go much beyond first base: the likely reversion of the country to Taliban rule should a pullout occur.
The problem with this logic is that there will be a pullout - in the case of the Americans beginning as early as July next year; and that many experts point to the security situation steadily worsening, regardless of troop levels.
Rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan is a worthy objective; but the larger project of achieving peace and stability across the country is something the same experts are beginning to say can only achieved by the Afghanis themselves.
It is an argument that will acquire greater force should there be further Kiwi fatalities.
Simon Cunliffe is assistant editor at the Otago Daily Times.
