After what seems an eternity of indecision and undoubtedly many thousands of dollars spent on polling, Prime Minister John Key announced New Zealand's commitment to the latest war in Iraq this week.
It was probably the least we could get away with without eschewing a military involvement altogether but there was no vote in our Parliament as would normally be expected.
We are, after all, getting involved in a war and even the PM agreed that our effort would make little difference to whatever outcome that finally emerged.
The region seems to have been in an almost perpetual state of conflict since the decade-long Iran-Iraq war erupted in 1988.
This was followed by two Gulf Wars initiated by the first and second George Bush Presidents of the US and general disorder leading up to the Syrian War and the malign development of the Islamic State or Isis.
Mr Key had one thing right, however, that this latest conflict has deep roots in Middle East history and if you haven't got some idea of what happened 1400 years ago then what's happening now would be incomprehensible.
Shortly after the death of Islam's prophet and founder in the seventh century, his followers split into two warring factions, largely on the issue of succession.
This schism was violent, resulting in the death of one possible successor.
That issue has never healed, though there have been very long periods of peaceful coexistence.
The two sects of Sunni and Shia Islam (with many sub-sects) developed different traditions.
Worldwide, something like 85 per cent of Muslims identify as Sunni, with 15 per cent as Shia.
Shia adherents are concentrated in the eastern parts of the Middle East and form a large majority in Iran and a 65 per cent to 35 per cent per cent majority in Iraq.
Here is where it gets complicated, but before exploring the conflict that we are now a part of, it must be said that for most of the last millennium and a half, the two sects and many other religions in the area have got along just fine.
Throughout the long history of Islam, it has usually been a tolerant faith, often in stark contrast to Christianity.
A large Jewish population flourished in Spain during the 600-odd years of Islamic Moorish rule but was expelled or subjected to forced conversion on the conquest of Spain by a Christian monarchy after 1492.
The Sunni Ottoman Empire which ruled what is now Iraq until the aftermath of the First World War was also tolerant of religious minorities.
Sarajevo, now the capital of Bosnia, was part of this empire for hundreds of years and you can still see an Orthodox Cathedral, a Catholic Cathedral and a Muslim Mosque in the same neighbourhood.
After the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire, WW1 victors France and Britain took over administration of what are now Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
In 1918, the region was split into states by secret agreement of the colonial powers along lines drawn up by diplomats Sir Mark Sykes and Francois George-Picot. The borders separating the new countries on the map are still known as the Sykes-Picot lines.
It is important to note that there was no input from local inhabitants and little reference to ethnic or religious divisions
Thus modern Iraq is an artificial creation of the Western colonial powers and it is perhaps surprising that the Sykes-Picot solution has endured for almost 100 years.
The Ottomans had ruled what became Iraq via their sectarian allies, the Sunnis, though the majority in the country were of the Shia sect.
The British mostly left this situation alone and the Sunnis, until the fall of Saddam Hussein, formed the ruling class and, importantly, commanded Iraq's army.
The US conquest of Iraq meant a disbanded Iraqi army, a kind of democracy and an inevitable power shift to Shia politicians, who excluded the long-dominant Sunnis from any real influence.
These groups, Iraqi Sunnis and the former Iraqi army, form the core of Isis and are well entrenched in the Sunni areas of Iraq.
Given the history of the area and the passions involved, a military solution to the conflict that is occurring at the moment is extremely unlikely.
That only leaves a political solution, and an editorial in the current issue of The Economist has a sensible suggestion.
In northern Iraq the Kurds, yet another element in the ethic patchwork, have set up their own successful state and The Economist argues that it should be an independent nation.
It may be that the endgame in Iraq will be the same as in Yugoslavia, where six countries finally emerged from that conflict.
Rather than military involvement, perhaps we should use our new influence on the UN Security Council to promote a peace conference with a view to separation and independence for peoples who are now at each other's throats.
# Mike Williams grew up in Hawke's Bay. He is a supporter of pro-amalgamation group A Better Hawke's Bay (Amalgamate Hawke's Bay). He is chief executive of the NZ Howard League and a former president of the Labour Party. He is a political commentator and can be heard on Radio NZ's Nine to Noon programme at 11am on Mondays and Sean Plunkett's RadioLive show at 11am on Fridays. All opinions in this column are his and not the newspaper's.
