The loss of 14 service personnel in Afghanistan on Saturday illustrates again the danger involved in this mission. The crash was reportedly an accident, but that will be of little comfort to the families concerned and to a public which is waking up to the fact that the Taleban, which appeared to have been defeated nearly five years ago, is attempting to reassert itself. While there are parts of Afghanistan where outside forces really are serving at “peacekeepers”, many areas within the Helmand province and Kandahar are, in effect, a combat zone. Those who were on board the crashed plane were monitoring Taleban activities to relay that information to Nato troops.

In overall military terms, however, this is an operation that can be won even if it has proved to be more arduous than anticipated. The quality of British soldiers on the ground is very high and the damage that they have inflicted on the Taleban rebels is considerable. These men are being well supported by units from the Canadian armed forces — four of whom were killed in action yesterday. It is inevitable that there will be more military casualties in Afghanistan to come.

The scale of those losses depends in part on the performance of the equipment assigned to the troops. Conditions in Afghanistan are challenging. The climate varies between searing heat for much of the year and heavy snowfall once winter sets in, as it will do shortly. Most of the material which Nato has at its command was never designed with this sort of conflict in mind. Improvisation has been essential. The Nimrod MR2 which went down this weekend was originally meant for maritime warfare and had to be adapted for local circumstances. This may be irrelevant to its fate but it is indicative of what is occurring.

If the military had large amounts of surplus resources elsewhere, then it would obviously redirect it to Afghanistan. The blunt truth, though, is that it does not have sizeable stocks instantly on call. Where, for example, helicopters that can be reconfigured with relative ease have been identified, they are seconded. This is, of practicality, a rather piecemeal procedure. That in turn means equipment in the theatre is being quite severely stretched. Reinforcement, as should be provided, would means spending extra money.

For if the fighting in Afghanistan is to continue at the current level, then the financial allocation that was initially made — £1 billion taken from the Treasury contingency reserve, not the defence budget, to be accounted for over five years — will obviously be inadequate. It is perfectly possible that the threat posed by the Taleban will be reduced in a relatively short order, but it would be wise to increase the sum that can be spent by the military. They should not have to penny-pinch.

Kim Howells, the Foreign Office Minister, arrived in Kabul yesterday for his fourth trip to the country and pointed out the achievements that have been made in reconstructing Afghanistan despite the Taleban’s campaign. Those who have visited British soldiers there do not detect any crisis of morale. But when the winter arrives the soldiering season will largely stop, and an assessment has to be made as to whether the number of troops is sufficient for the task in hand and, vitally, what is to be done about their equipment. The Ministry of Defence should not shirk in submitting its supplemental bid, nor should the Treasury withhold backing for that sum of money.