With the recent tragic deaths in Afghanistan, many people are asking if it is worth it. While it is difficult to outline the price we are willing to pay for success in Afghanistan, the price of failure is not hard to describe.

If we abandoned our task in Afghanistan today, we would put the security of our own country in greater peril. Al-Qaeda used Afghanistan for training, and to plan attacks on the West. We must not let that happen again. To throw in the towel at this stage would encourage every jihadist to believe that we lack the moral courage to see through a difficult mission. And it would gravely undermine the credibility of Nato, the alliance that has protected this country for six decades.

We must, however, be clear what we mean by success. We are not talking about establishing a fully fledged Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan, a country that has never known such a thing. Some of the original, unjustified optimism and the lofty goals were badly misplaced.

Our goal in Afghanistan should be simple and clear. It is to deny al-Qaeda and its former patrons in the Taleban the space from which to launch further terrorist attacks such as the one in New York on 9/11. For that we need a basic Afghan state able to maintain its own internal and external security to a level that prevents al-Qaeda and its affiliates from returning to set up on its territory. That should be our clear but limited objective as an alliance.

But there are few people who believe that Nato, as an organisation, has been an unqualified success in Afghanistan. The reluctance of some allies to fund fully their contribution and the restrictions and caveats placed by others on their troops have made some operations more difficult than they could have been.

The heaviest fighting — and the highest fatalities — have been borne by the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, along with smaller allies, notably the Dutch, the Danes and the Baltic states. If other members choose not to fight, but have equipment that the fighting nations need, we must make greater efforts to share those assets.

In Britain, because Gordon Brown was never willing to fund Tony Blair’s wars, and because Mr Blair was too weak or too unwilling to force him to, unavoidable gaps were created in our military capability.

The decision by this Government to slash the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion when it was pouring money into other parts of the public sector has had catastrophic consequences. It has resulted in a diminished capacity to move our servicemen and women with greater relative safety.

I do not claim that helicopters are the whole answer. Troops will still need to be present on the ground; helicopters are not invulnerable. But they are fast and less predictable, and reduce the need for lengthy resupply convoys by land.

That is why commanders such as the former CO of 3 Para, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Tootal, and the former Commandant of the Royal Marines, Major-General Julian Thompson, have been calling for them. The Government says that it has increased helicopter hours by 84 per cent. It says that more helicopters will be coming in the winter. But the fact that, three and a half years into this mission, we still do not have enough helicopters available, despite repeated calls for them, is, as David Cameron has said, a scandal.

As a result, we depend more and more on armoured vehicles to protect our Forces. For too long many of these have been old and inadequate. Although progress has been made recently, especially with the ordering of new Mastiff vehicles, in the meantime, the Taleban have increased the strength and sophistication of their weaponry against them. We cannot simply resort to what are effectively bank vaults on wheels, useful for force protection but with little flexibility or manoeuvrability. While we must have better armoured vehicles, we need greater ability to move personnel by air, as well as better countermeasures for detecting improvised explosive devices.

When it comes to troop numbers, decisions must be based on advice from senior military commanders on the ground. If the Government turns down any request, it must not be for political expediency or the Treasury’s interests.

At a time when our servicemen and women are fighting and dying thousands of miles from home, it is important that they should know they have support not only from the public, but across the political spectrum. We are fortunate that, in a society without conscription, we have people courageous and committed enough to put their lives at risk voluntarily for the security of their country and their fellow citizens.

But it is also right that, as the Opposition, we should speak up on our Forces’ behalf when we believe that the Government is failing to give them the equipment they need, and to hold the Government to account. That is one of our strengths as a democracy and as a nation. It is a duty we owe to our Armed Forces, whom we all rightly admire so much.

Liam Fox is the Shadow Defence Secretary

Times Recommends

• A dose of defeat is just the medicine
• Protecting ourselves from Eurocreep
• After the summer of LUV, it'll still hurt