Harry Reid claims that Iraq is lost. If one defines "lost" in terms of failure to achieve a major objective then Reid may be correct. We have thus far failed to bring stability to certain parts of the country, and may not be able to do so. Even using this definition, though, Reid's assessment may be premature. We have significantly increased stability in key neighborhoods in Baghdad without having yet completed the troop surge. A less partisan, more sober Senate Majority Leader might wait for the surge to be completed before declaring defeat.

But the more important point is that Reid's implicit definition of "lost" is misguided. A loss doesn't occur just because you fail to succeed with respect to one important objective -- a loss occurs when the enemy achieves its major objectives. And that clearly hasn't happened it Iraq.

Al-Qaeda's objective is to drive the U.S. out of Iraq in order to gain ascendancy in Anbar province and/or elsewhere. That hasn't happened. Indeed, the best evidence is that Al Qaeda is losing ground in Anbar province, as local tribal chiefs, with our support, turn increasing against the terrorists.

The Baathist objective is to drive the U.S. out of Iraq in order to regain ascendancy, if not over the entire country then over certain parts of it. That hasn't happened. The Baathists can inflict violence in some areas (many other areas are relatively peaceful) but that's not the same as having control.

The objective of the radical Shia militias is to drive the U.S. out in order to gain control of the central government, and (it appears) cleanse Baghdad or many of its neighborhoods of Sunnis. They have not succeeded in gaining control of the government. Indeed, recently the radical Shia element withdrew from the government. Shia radicals have had some success with "cleansing" and revenge, but Sunnis now are returning (though probably not in large numbers) to their old Baghdad neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the Shia militias are struggling to maintain control over their neighborhoods in the face of the surge. But even if they were to regain undisputed control, their ambitions extend much further.

The only way our enemies can reasonably expect to accomplish their major objectives is for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq or to stay but do little. Otherwise, the best they can hope for is some sort of stalemate in the case of the Shia radicals, and worse in the case of the others. The pull out that would grant some or all of our enemies victory is the course advocated by Harry Reid and most of his party.

This uncomfortable truth explains, I think, why Harry Reid declared Iraq lost. He knows that if his party has its way, Iraq will be lost in the true sense of the word. One answer to this reality would be to argue that the lose wouldn't be that consequential or, more honestly, that avoding true defeat just isn't worth the price of remaining. Reid and his left-wing supporters have adopted a less honest solution. To dodge criticism for inflicting defeat, they have chosen to declare, contrary to the evidence, that Iraq is already lost.