I think you misunderstand.
A filibuster allows him and Cruz and others of their persuasion to talk and invite Americans to listen. As long as they can hold the floor uninterrupted. They can inspire and educate.
In the end it does not stop a vote unless there are enough votes to stop one, and Rand Paul knows there won’t be. Reid and the Senate Dems along with the McCain insane faction of “R”s will pass this in the Senate.
They will get to engage because that’s how the Senate is set up.
There will also be a vote, just delayed for a few hours.
Rand filibustered on a nomination, for 13 hrs, in order to demand that the WH clarify its position on the legality of killing Americans in America with Drones, something they had dodged before.
There was then a vote on that nomination after Rand gave up the floor, and that nomination passed overwhelmingly.
Perhaps you are right about the strategy, but I think this would be a misuse of the term “filibuster.” To filibuster is to extend debate on a bill to such a length that it consumes all the time in a session allocated to a given matter, thereby delaying a call for a vote on the bill until at least the following session. Debate may be ended by the body with a vote of cloture, requiring at least 60 votes.
The president pro tempore or committee chairman can give deference to a member to allow him to speak for a long time, if that's what he chooses to do. But I don't think he's obligated to, and he has the power to limit time taken by a senator to speak on the floor if he wants to; and he probably would if he thinks that he has the votes for cloture.
Anyway, I don't think Paul can block the parliamentary procedure of the Senate at will. He really needs 60 votes to be able to talk beyond is alloted time. If he has the 60 votes, he can filibuster. But I don't think he should filibuster a vote to take the country to war even if he has the votes for the reasons stated in my previous post.