Harm reduction is almost a political or accounting term. The policy here is to try and limit the damage, reduce the cost through counselling and medication. Relapses are acceptable and expected, but overall the sufferer costs the country less. That's the theory.
For the sufferer it is a pretty second rate deal, but even in AA, many are quite happy to settle for second best. It looks easier than the program, and, relative to how they were, their lives have improved.
Partly it is based in the scientific/medical approach which does not have an expectation of a thoroughly wonderful life at the end of the treatment. Instead it suggests that one will always be suffering, always at risk (my alcoholism is doing pushups out the back) and will have underlying issues that need on going therapy and medication.
AA, the program, has very high expectations as regards the outcome. A complete psychic change, a whole new out look on life like being reborn and geting a second go, freedom to do anything free men can do, ability to take lifes problems in our stride generally a very positive outcome is anticipated. But it takes effort, and not everyone wants to put in the effort.
Sometimes though, we are left without options DSM. Your experience this time shows that for you a half arsed harm reduction approach is just not satisfactory. It might be saving the state some money, but for you the outcome is less than second rate, it is total misery.
I think your idea of getting back to AA is a good one. On your other question about 5 plus years without AA, I can think of three on this site. There are no doubt more but many non AAers don't post sobriety dates so it is hard to tell.