Reid says we have lost. So who won?

A commenter at LGF points to this by Salim Mansur:

[…]The war in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, to bring regime change was swift. The post-war effort to help put in place the basic requirements for democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, however, was met -- not surprisingly -- with stiff resistance from both within and outside of Iraq.

Al-Qaida killers and their local supporters learned that indiscriminate violence against fellow Arabs and Muslims could weaken Americans in their commitment to the making of a free and modern Iraq.

Al-Qaida's strategy is seemingly working. Harry Reid, the U.S. Democratic Senate Majority Leader, has declared the war in Iraq is lost. Hence, the winners would be the terrorists -- the barbarian marauders from the 7th century taking full measure of the greatest Western power of the 21st century and its inability to stomach the cost of defeating them.[…]

More on this later. The losing side in a war customarily is required by the winner to pay reparations to the victor. What does Reid have in mind that we should pay to Al Qaeda for reparations? The lives of losing leaders are often forfeit; since Reid has declared the loss, does that make him the loser? Or does he have someone else in mind?

[Update, June 9, 2007: The original link to the Winnipeg Sun for the Salim Mansur article has gone behind a pay wall, so I have changed it to what appears to be the same article at the Toronto Sun.]

Also: At Villainous Company, Cassandra tears Harry Reid a new one and sets off a comment storm.

This from Ramirez at Investors Business Daily: