The problem with Paul is he is ignoring parts of the Constitution regarding use of military force in saying it can only be used with a ‘formal declaration of war’ as worded the way he expects. Declarations of war work against a specific nation-state but doesn’t apply against groups who don’t fight for a nation like terrorist organizations or organized crime. Using just the declaration of war option limits the scope of how our military can defend us.
Let’s take a look back at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives three uses for military force. 1. A formal declaration of war. 2. Suppressing insurrections or rebellions. & 3. Punishing piracy and offenses against the law of nations.
The last one is important because it gives Congress the means to defend our nations interest when it comes to non-formal war where things such as a treaty with us is violated or there is asymmetrical military action against us (such as the Barbary pirates Jefferson went after).
Congress did use #3 in our move against Iraq as they had violated treaties with us as well as other treaties we are co-signatories with.
Remember, the Constitution declares that treaties are to be considered high law of the land, the only thing other than itself it uses. Unless Congress de-ratifies said treaty, it is an agreement we are obligated to honor.
Also, note, back in 2001, Paul agreed with this when he voted to go into Afghanistan under the ‘authorization to use force’ versus a declaration of war (#3 above).
This is why it is important to not play with the Constitution like Paul does. He is using this line like the left does when they tried to make Bush a war criminal but he is contradicting his own votes regarding Afghanistan.
What is important is to have a Congress that specifically puts the US interest first and not does or says things for political soundbites.
You are missing the elephant in the room. A declaration of war is mostly illegal under most circumstances of international law. There are only a few circumstances under which such declarations may be legally possible, since the adoption of certain early 20th Century international treaties. Warfare is still lawful and even obligatory under these later international laws, but the warfare is not lawful by authority of a declaration of war in these circumstances.
I do agree with him when he says we should go in, fight to win then get out....that's about all I agree with him on in Foreign Policy.
My only problem with these wars has been the suicidal ROE and politically correct nonsense.
Not to mention the traitors in the democrap party disparaging our Honorable Men and Women fighting it.