The Post is eager to have Congress authorize the war on ISIS:

Encouragingly, a bipartisan war authorization draft has emerged in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Crafted by Sens. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), it attempts to bridge the gap between the two parties’ positions with language that discourages the use of “significant” ground troops against the Islamic State while stopping short of an explicit ban. Importantly, it does not limit the war geographically, making action against Islamic State affiliates in places such as Libya possible [bold mine-DL]; and it authorizes action against any entity that “presents a direct threat” to “forces trained by the coalition,” which would cover potential action to defend Syrian rebels against the Assad regime [bold mine-DL].

In other words, the Post editors are encouraged by provisions in this authorization that would leave the door open to dramatic escalations in the war on ISIS. The resolution in question permits expanding the war to other countries beside Iraq and Syria and it approves of the targeting of Syrian government forces. It doesn’t bar the use of ground forces, which all but guarantees that grounds will be introduced sooner or later. These provisions are exactly why Congress should refuse to pass such an authorization: it legitimizes an ill-conceived intervention that has never been properly debated or thought through. It would endorse a war that can be expanded to any part of the world where some jihadist group claims an affiliation with ISIS, and it potentially commits the U.S. to fight against multiple sides in the civil war in Syria at the same time. Unless one wishes for the U.S. to be at war continually in the Near East and North Africa for the foreseeable future, it makes no sense to support such a resolution.

It would be much better if Congress doesn’t rubber stamp the ongoing, illegal war that the administration started last year. That would deprive the administration of the political and legal cover for its unnecessary war, and it might eventually force Congress to reckon with the administration’s habit of waging illegal wars. It would be a serious mistake to pass a resolution authorizing a war that has already been going on illegally for more than a year. That would do nothing to limit the duration or scope of the war, and it would reward the executive for its illegal behavior for the last twelve months.