http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

His concerns in 2002 appear quite prescient to today.  Not only is the nation not committed to victory, but members of congress who voted for the war are arguing over who can extricate us the fastest.

I too felt a sense of foreboding when congress authorized the President to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein.  I knew our country was about to engage in conflict in Iraq, I knew many good reasons why we should.  In fact, I even joined a local National Guard infantry unit that deployed to Iraq.  But, wasn’t one of the lessons of the Vietnam War that we avoid these ambiguous “Authorization of Force” type of wars? 

Just as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was derided as a “blank check” by it’s critics and subsequently repealed by Nixon, so now the current congress claims ignorance of the presidents intentions when passing the current authorization.  Congressional deniability was practically written into the
Iraq force authorization.

A declaration of war comes of the President and congress, as representatives of the people, determining that the whole of the country and society will be committed to victory though pain, exhaustion and flag draped coffins stand before us.

A declaration of war presupposes a national commitment to see it through to victory.  A war ends when one side sues for peace with mutually acceptable terms of surrender, or the other side takes over or conquers the first.

An authorization of force comes of congress wanting to appear tough and angry to their constituents and our common enemies, while allowing them to wiggle out of the consequences of that use of force later. 

An “Authorization of Force” presupposes no commitment past those of our military families.  It ends when society and our nation tire of hearing about the sacrifice of brave and intelligent young people.  It ends when we tell the soldiers, who think they’re risking life and limb for great ideals, that it wasn’t really all that important.