President Barack Obama's White House backs the efforts, in principle, having withdrawn US forces in December 2011.
Obama has declared the war over, yet a loophole in the law green-lighting the March 2003 invasion allows for future US presidents to send troops back to Iraq, still a turbulent country.
Also Read
"Two years ago, President Obama declared the war in Iraq over," Paul said.
"With the return of our troops and practical side of the mission concluded, I feel it is necessary to bring the war to an official and legal end."
Paul, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, has clashed with Obama over national security, notably on the use of military drones, but the White House backs the senator's latest position.
"The administration supports the repeal of the Iraq AUMF since it is no longer used for any US government activities," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement.
"We understand that some in Congress are considering legislation related to the Iraq AUMF, and we will certainly examine these proposals as they come forward."
A US official said the White House has not actively sought to repeal the AUMF "because the effect would be entirely symbolic, and we have many more pressing priorities to take up with Congress."
But Democratic supporters of the two-page bill, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, said closing the book on an "open-ended" war resolution was a key check on a commander-in-chief's power.
"No president, Democrat or Republican, should have a blank check when it comes to war," Gillibrand said.
The legislation brings together an unlikely band including arch-conservative Senator Mike Lee and liberal Senate stalwart Ron Wyden.
One of 23 senators who refused to vote for the Iraq war resolution back in 2002, Wyden said it "makes sense" to end the AUMF now.
"While sectarian conflict and violence still persist in Iraq, it must be the Iraqis -- not the men and women of the US military -- who now make the difficult choices, forge a stable and inclusive political order and steer their country to peace and prosperity."
In October 2002, by more than two to one, US lawmakers authorized president George W Bush to use military force to oust Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
The resulting 2003 invasion has haunted US politics for years, with Bush administration claims, including Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and alleged links with Al-Qaeda, widely discredited.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app