Nearly five months and 1,100 airstrikes into the American-led war against the Islamic State, Congress has barely begun to fulfill its constitutional war-making responsibilities. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday belatedly opened up debate on legislation that would authorize the use of force, but there's no expectation that the work can be finished before the legislative session ends on Thursday. That means it will be put off at least until January, when the new Congress takes office.

The delay also means that President Obama will continue to conduct the war in Iraq and Syria under an outdated 2001 authorization, without explicit approval by Congress and without the necessary limitations that the committee chairman, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and two other members, Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., have urged.

Presidents often resist attempts by Congress to limit their powers. But after 13 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that first targeted Al-Qaida and then evolved into conflicts in other states (like Yemen) against "associated" extremists, America cannot afford to get caught up in another endless, all-consuming conflict.

The Menendez bill attempts to address such concerns in part by prohibiting the deployment of American ground troops in the fight against the Islamic State, also called ISIL, except in specific circumstances, including collecting intelligence; enabling airstrikes, and carrying out operational planning or "other forms of advice and assistance to forces fighting ISIL in Iraq or Syria." The reference to "other forms" refers in part to rescue operations in support of American troops who may be injured on the battlefield, a reasonable exception. Still, the language seems too open to broad interpretation and could be used by presidents to justify almost anything.

Obama has insisted he has no intention of deploying ground troops in combat against the Islamic State. His stated plan is to rely on indigenous forces for ground troops, backed by America air power. So he should have no problem accepting the ground troop limits in the legislation.