Emma Roller reports on Rand Paul’s proposed declaration of war against ISIS:

And by introducing what would be the first declaration of war to come out of Congress since World War II, Paul is backing up the claim he’s been trying to prove over the past six months: that he is a “conservative realist” who is skeptical, but not afraid of intervention.

If the war against ISIS is going to continue, it is better that Congress authorize it or, in this case, formally declare war, but I do find it a bit strange to view this and other similar proposals in Congress as a meaningful check on the president. The administration has made clear that it doesn’t think it needs Congress’ approval to wage the war against ISIS, and it isn’t going to respect any Congressional action that doesn’t approve of what the president decided to do months ago. An authorization or declaration at this point would do little more than endorse a war that will continue no matter what Congress does or doesn’t do.

Setting a one-year expiration on such a declaration makes sense, since that would require Congress to reconsider its support, but who thinks that the administration would end hostilities if Congress chose not to reauthorize the war? It would deny that it needed Congress’ approval in the first place, but would cite the first vote in favor of authorization as justification enough to continue the war for as long as it wanted. In the event that Congress voted against authorizing force or declaring war, the war would not stop unless the ‘no’ voters were also prepared to deprive the war of funds, which is even less likely to happen than a ‘no’ vote. It is right for Paul’s proposal to mostly rule out ground forces in combat, but again what is going to stop the administration from ignoring this restriction in practice if it deems it appropriate?

Put bluntly, it isn’t much of a reassertion of Congressional authority or responsibility to acquiesce to a war illegally launched by the president. Even if this is done through a formal declaration of war, it is still a matter of signing off on a war that the president already started by himself. As a matter of policy, a declaration of war commits those voting ‘yes’ to support an ill-conceived and unnecessary military operation. Passing such a measure would confirm that presidents can start wars illegally and that they will then have their illegal decisions endorsed by Congress after the fact. If there is to be a vote on the war against ISIS, Congress should vote no.