Sen. Rand Paul risks alienating a key constituency with his vigorous support for fighting the Islamic State group, leading anti-war advocates say.

Paul, R-Ky., unveiled Monday a draft declaration of war he plans to introduce in December to target the Iraq- and Syria-based rebel group, which has beheaded three American hostages as purported revenge for U.S. airstrikes that began in August.

The last time Congress officially declared war was in the early 1940s after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Paul's legislation would repeal the 2002 Iraq War authorization, an action the Obama administration supports, and would set a one-year timer on the 2001 anti-al-Qaida authorization, which the administration currently cites as allowing the war against the Islamic State group.



"Sen. Paul is being too clever by half with this 'limited' declaration of war," says Justin Raimondo, the libertarian editorial director of Antiwar.com, a prominent online gathering place for anti-interventionists.

“I understand what he's trying to do – reclaim the power to declare war from the executive and limit the scope of a conflict that's already ongoing – but this strategy is likely to backfire and simply open the door to a wider war,” Raimondo says.

“Paul's attempt to limit the introduction of ground troops will never hold,” he adds.

The draft declaration of war would allow for ground troops only to protect or rescue U.S. civilians or troops, to collect intelligence, to advise local forces and to conduct "limited operations against high-value targets."



Raimondo believes it will be difficult to define victory if war were declared, and says Paul has made a political miscalculation.

“Although coverage of this has emphasized the senator's desire to limit U.S. intervention in the region, I think this will hurt him with anti-interventionists in both parties who will simply see the ‘Rand Paul wants to declare war’ headline,” he says.

Paul, described last year by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol as a leader of the “Code Pink faction of the Republican Party,” has now alienated that politician-hounding feminist activist group.

“He won’t be getting bouquets from us anymore,” Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin says.

“He’s not his father’s son anymore,” Benjamin says, referring to reliably anti-interventionist former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. “He’s moving himself so much to the right to position himself for a presidential run that people are not going to recognize who he is and what he stands for.”



Benjamin says Paul has made himself fair game for a Code Pink-led heckling. But she says he will be punished more permanently by the American electorate, which she believes will quickly turn against the war that President Barack Obama is now waging without specific congressional authorization.

“If people want a candidate who’s going to be pro-intervention, they might as well vote for Hillary Clinton or any number of Republicans who will throw their hat in the ring,” she says. “Rand Paul had distinguished himself as someone much more sane.”

It’s unclear if Paul’s requested declaration of war will receive serious consideration in Congress. Obama asked lawmakers earlier this month for new authorization of force legislation.

A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council stressed Obama’s desire for a new authorized use of military force (AUMF) resolution in response to a request for comment.



Editorial Cartoons on the Islamic State View All 82 Images