Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) announced in his weekly newsletter that he's opening the door for de-authorization.
This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so.
It's an interesting strategy for the long-shot Presidential candidate.
As Paul states, his bill is technically neutral on whether to end the war or not; it expires the current authorization, but allows for a new authorization to be drafted. In other words, it would force an "up-down" vote on continuing the occupation. He thinks this will win favor with both sides:
I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war.
Which response is he betting on? With a Democratically controlled Congress, he must expect that the most likely outcome (if his bill ever makes it to the floor) is passage of the sunset clause, though even that is far from certain at this point.
If the expiration is passed, what then? I suspect Paul is hoping both to distinguish himself from his colleagues by forcing them to explicitly voice their support for a continued occupation (which he will oppose), and to take the lead by having spearheaded the occupation's end.
However this serves his personal and political purposes, it does present a positive opportunity for the Democrats. A vote to expire authorization, especially phrased in terms of having "achieved the objectives," sends all the right messages: "support the troops" by declaring them winners (and bringing them home), defy the President by revoking his authority, and blame the Republicans for failing to pass a renewed authorization.