Calling for a declaration of war cannot be anti-war
There is a difference, though some will argue there is not, between several Congressional resolutions authorizing the President to use force in Southwest Asia on the one hand, and a declaration of war against an underground organization and its supporting states on the other.
Put me down as one of those who think the Congress should declare the war. Anything less is a delegation of powers to the President that were clearly intended to stay with Congress. It also affords our less honorable members of Congress with the opportunity to hide behind weasel words if the war does not succeed: "We passed a resolution allowing the President to use force to effect A. We didn't say anything about him invading B."
The President, as Commander in Chief, wages the war. He determines how and with how much. The Congress decides whether, and upon whom, the war will be waged. These roles were separated for a purpose.
Of course antiwar leftists are calling, and even suing, to force the President to stop preparations in Southwest Asia, until and unless Congress declares war. As Bigwig suggests, a fine way to silence them is to grant their wish.
If war is the continuation of politics by other means, then the decision to go to war is a political one. A decision of such gravity, of such consequences, deserves the public visibility of recorded votes for the genuine article, the real thing, the full monty.