LOL! Surrender by any other name is still surrender. You can parse it any way you want, nothing changes.
If Ron Paul's argument is that we cannot legitimately deploy troops the way we have without a declared war, and if he (per #192) has indeed sought to have a clear and unambiguous declaration of war, how would you describe his actions if he sought to bring our troops into compliance with the Constitution?
To be sure, if that were his intention I would think a better way to describe it would be to say he'd threaten to pull the troops home unless a proper declaration of war were passed. Though depending upon the state of Congress at the time, such a declaration might not again be possible.