Today is the one year anniversary of the start of the War on ISIL. To this day Congress has still not voted on an AUMF, and it doesn't appear that it will happen in the near future.
That hasn't stopped Obama from launching a different war.

The Obama administration has determined that it must retaliate against China for the theft of the personal information of more than 20 million Americans from the databases of the Office of Personnel Management, but it is still struggling to decide what it can do without prompting an escalating cyberconflict.
The decision came after the administration concluded that the hacking attack was so vast in scope and ambition that the usual practices for dealing with traditional espionage cases did not apply.

China Daily writes that the United States risks setting a “dangerous precedent”. Xinhua reports that the United States is “building momentum for a cyberwar.”

The Obama Administration hasn't bothered to offer proof that the Chinese government was behind the hacking.
Nor has the Obama Administration offered proof that the Russian government was behind the recent hack of the Pentagon’s unclassified email system, but that hasn't stopped them from suggesting it.

The email system was compromised late last month and brought down, in what officials say was a spear-phishing attack, getting email users on the system to click on harmful links. One US official, speaking anonymously, said it seemed “fairly sophisticated,” concluding it may well have “come from a state actor such as Russia.”

The Russian government may have been behind the hack. China's government too. Or not.
But if you are going to declare any sort of war against a foreign government, even a cyberwar, then you need to justify it. You can't just do it. There needs to be some sort of public debate.
Let's not forget innocent civilian casualties, which happens in all wars, whether it is wars on terror or drugs or other things.
What's more, the laws being passed to legalize this war are very authoritarian and a danger to civil rights.

Back in April, the DHS said that 2% of hacks rise to the level of "prompting a national response". Considering that there are hundreds, if not thousands of attempted hacks every day, that number is alarming.

But it adds that “there may be times when the president or the secretary of defense may determine that it would be appropriate for the U.S. military to conduct cyberoperations to disrupt an adversary’s military related networks or infrastructure so that the U.S. military can protect U.S. interests in an area of operations. For example, the United States military might use cyberoperations to terminate an ongoing conflict on U.S. terms, or to disrupt an adversary’s military systems to prevent the use of force against U.S. interests.” That last phrase seemed to leave open the door for pre-emptive cyberattacks.

Pre-emptive cyberattacks is a dangerous rabbit hole to go down. There is no telling where it might stop.
While a cyberwar would most likely be nothing more than an inconvenience for the average American (no one has ever been hurt in a cyberwar, while cows killed 22 people last year), it could have devastating economic effects.

We've already "weaponized finance" in this war.
The legality of a cyberwar could be nightmarish. The lack of transparency remains the same.

Back in early 2013, the Obama Administration declared that the president had the power “to order a preemptive strike if the United States detects (allegedly) credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad.”
The US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), based at Fort Meade, is our cyber hit squad. China has their own cyber army.

In fact, Obama already launched a cyberwar against Iran years ago.

The document, which was first reported this month by The Intercept, an online publication that grew out of the disclosures by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, did not describe the targets. But for the first time, the surveillance agency acknowledged that its attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a George W. Bush administration program, kicked off the cycle of retaliation and escalation that has come to mark the computer competition between the United States and Iran.
The document declares that American intercepts of voice or computer communications showed that three waves of attacks against American banks that began in August 2012 were launched by Iran “in retaliation to Western activities against Iran’s nuclear sector,” and added that “senior officials in the Iranian government are aware of these attacks.”

In this year's defense budget "cyber" appeared 147 times, including money for hiring contractors for “Plan X,” a $110 million program designed to “help war planners assemble and launch online strikes in a hurry and make cyber attacks a more routine part of U.S. military operations.”
To get a visual idea of how many cyber attacks there are on the internet, see this.