President Obama appears prepared to authorize U.S. military airstrikes in Syria as part of a more intensive campaign to defeat the Islamic State, and the White House does not believe it needs formal congressional approval to take action, according to people who have spoken with the president in recent days. 
 
 Obama discussed his plans in a dinner with a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts Monday night at the White House and made clear he believes he has the authority to attack the militant Islamist group on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border in order to protect U.S national security, multiple people who participated in the discussion said. The move to attack in Syria would represent a remarkable escalation in strategy for Obama, who has sought during his presidency to reduce the U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. 
 
 The Islamic State controls wide swaths of territory in both countries, but the United States has so far limited its military engagement to Iraq, as Obama has been reluctant to intervene in Syria's civil war. 
 
 
 
 President Obama speaks at a press conference on the second day of the NATO 2014 Summit at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales, on Sept. 5. (AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEBSAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images) 
 
 As the president prepares to brief congressional leadership Tuesday and deliver a prime-time White House address to the American public Wednesday night, he is committed to taking the fight to the Islamic State "wherever their strategic targets are," said Michèle Flournoy, the former U.S. undersecretary of defense policy who was among those at the dinner. 
 
 "This is not an organization that respects international boundaries," said Flournoy, who left the Obama administration in 2012 and now serves as chief executive of the Center for a New American Security. "You cannot leave them with a safe haven. ... I expect him to be very candid." 
 
 There is no indication that a U.S. strike in Syria is imminent, and the Obama administration has signaled that a stepped up U.S. effort in Iraq, in conjunction with an international and regional partnership, is likely the first step in combating the Islamic State advances. 
 
 A White House official did not immediately reply to request for comment for this story. In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, Obama said it was time for the United States to "start going on some offense" against the Islamic State. 
 
 At his daily briefing Tuesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the Islamic State is "operating in a virtual safe haven in Syria. That’s a dangerous situation.” 
 
 White House press secretary Josh Earnest said at the daily briefing on Tuesday that the president would speak about the military and diplomatic roles the U.S. will take in supporting Iraqis against Islamic State militants in light of the swearing in of a new "inclusive Iraqi government." (AP) 
 
 Obama, who has been criticized for being too cautious by members of both political parties on Capitol Hill, is unlikely to lay out all the details of his plans to expand U.S. military engagement in the region during his speech on Wednesday, which will take place at 9 p.m. in the State Floor of the White House. Instead, he is expected to make his case for how targeted U.S. military force fits into his broader strategy to develop an international coalition and regional partners to attack the Islamic State in order to "degrade and destroy" its operations. 
 
 The president “thinks he has the legal authority he needs" to increase U.S. military engagement in both Iraq and Syria, said Jane Harman, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who attended the dinner with Obama. The White House's belief that it has authority to act is based on the reports Obama has filed with Congress under the War Powers Act and the earlier congressional authorization for the war in Iraq. 
 
 Over the past month, Obama has authorized airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq to defend U.S. personnel, help rescue members of a religious minority group trapped on a mountainside and defend strategic infrastructure, including two dams. He sent in U.S. troops to help protect the consulate in Irbil, but he has vowed not to send U.S. combat forces in the campaign against the Islamic State, after having withdrawn the remaining U.S. forces from Iraq several years ago. 
 
 Last year, Obama had decided to authorize limited airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but the president ultimately chose to ask Congress to endorse the move with a formal vote. That effort failed and the U.S. did not intervene with direct military action. But the Islamic State's rapid advances into Iraq this summer and its brutal tactics, which included the beheadings of two U.S. journalists in the past month, has ramped up pressure on the administration to take stronger action. 
 
 Several prominent Republican members, including Sen. Robert Portman (Ohio), said they believe Obama can launch airstrikes to combat the militants in both Iraq and Syria without seeking a congressional vote. 
 
 “The president has authorization to act now,” Portman said in a phone interview Tuesday. 
 
 Portman said he remained “a little confused” about the administration's strategy, saying it has been slow to develop. 
 
 “It’s just a passive response. I think it’s a leadership deficit right now,” he said, adding that he appreciates that the White House has scheduled briefings for the full House and Senate membership over the coming days. “We are ‘leading from behind,’ to use the president’s words. By not leading, we are making it more difficult, and more costly.” 
 
 Obama's dinner with the group of foreign policy experts -- a gathering that former high-ranking officials in Republican administrations, including Richard Haass and Stephen Hadley -- was part of a concerted White House effort in recent months to expand its sphere of influence. Although the president has on a semi-regular basis invited in outside experts for conversations, the White House has shifted its tone in recent months amid a series of high-profile foreign policy crises, ranging from Russia's intervention in eastern Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza and the advance of the Islamic State deep into Iraq. 
 
 In private conversations, senior White House national security aides have expressed greater willingness to hear new ideas and solicit input in hopes of doing a better job of developing strategy and communicating it to the public, said several influential foreign policy experts that have talked with Obama advisers in recent months. 
 
 Harman described the dinner on Monday as “focused and thoughtful.” Over a dinner of d'anjou pear salad and Chilean sea bass, Obama, Vice President Biden and the outside experts engaged in a deep discussion of the options to combat the Islamic State, those who participated said. 
 
 “The president clearly brought his 'A' game to this dinner,” Harman said. “I certainly felt my views were solicited and heard. He was in intake mode.” 
 
 Obama was clear that he wanted general congressional support -- or "buy-in" -- for his plans, in part because the increased military campaign, including training of Iraqi military forces and other regional fighters to take on the Islamic State, will come with a significant price tag from the Pentagon and is likely to take several years, people involved in the dinner said. 
 
 The president believes that his strategy falls within his broader national security strategy, outlined last spring in a speech at West Point, to used targeted force and avoid having the U.S. military get pulled into long ground campaigns. 
 
 One former Obama administration official, who was not at the dinner on Monday, said that the president was committed to a strategy to strike the Islamic State "wherever they are. The bar for strikes in eastern Syria is higher than in western Iraq, and if you're a military planner you have to meet that threshold. But the fact that we're reportedly doing surveillance flights over Syria already -- you're not doing those things unless the military has already been asked to prepare a targets package." ||||| President Barack Obama’s address detailing the White House’s plan to combat the terrorist threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant received mixed reviews on Capitol Hill on Wednesday evening as lawmakers prepare to potentially give the president new authorities to strike against the militant group in Syria. 
 
 The speech was immediately criticized by some of Obama’s fiercest foreign policy opponents. Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz dubbed the speech “fundamentally unserious” on Fox News. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), using another acronym for ISIL, said on CNN that “the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat from ISIS is.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 “The president’s plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the world’s largest, richest terrorist army,” McCain said in a subsequent statement with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). 
 
 (Full text, video of Obama's speech) 
 
 Senate Democrats praised the speech as a good approach to tackling the growing strength of ISIL in Iraq. 
 
 Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Obama’s plan was a “forceful strategy.” 
 
 “The president tonight laid out a forceful strategy to safeguard our security and that of our allies by rolling back and eventually destroying a brutal extremist group,” the Michigan Democrat said. “The president’s strategy calls for a broad coalition to support Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and religious minorities as they come together to fight a common enemy.” 
 
 House and Senate leaders will reconvene Thursday to chart a path forward for legislation giving Obama authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. House Republicans are weighing attaching the measure to a continuing resolution to fund the government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is waiting for the House to move before deciding on the Senate’s path forward. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Obama: U.S. chasing ISIL 'wherever they exist') 
 
 Reid said Wednesday evening that hearings on the proposal will commence next week. 
 
 “The one element of the strategy outlined by the president tonight that requires immediate congressional action is granting his administration the authority to equip and train Syrian troops to fight ISIS,” he said. “I believe that Republicans and Democrats in Congress will come together in the week ahead in a strong show of support to grant the president this critical authority.” 
 
 Obama detailed a four-part strategy to weaken and eventually “degrade, and ultimately destroy” ISIL, which has been terrorizing Iraqi citizens and has beheaded two American journalists. The effort, Obama said, will include training Iraqi security forces and moderate Syrian rebels — a move the administration has avoided since the outbreak of the civil conflict in Syria two years ago. 
 
 “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy,” Obama said during the prime-time address. 
 
 “We must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.” 
 
 Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said his panel will move to draft a resolution giving Obama the congressional authority to wage a “prolonged military campaign.” 
 
 “President Obama showed important leadership in laying out an initial plan to confront the threat from ISIL before this barbaric group has the ability to execute a large-scale attack against U.S. interests at home or abroad,” he said. 
 
 Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), an outspoken anti-war advocate, said Obama’s polices need to be swiftly put to a congressional vote for authorization. 
 
 “The Constitution requires Congress to vote on the use of military force. This is not about this president. This is about any president and any Congress,” she said. 
 
 Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said he supports a vote to institute a limited authority for U.S. action in the region and called Obama’s speech “strong.” 
 
 “He did what he had to do,” King said. 
 
 Across the Capitol, House Republicans were generally supportive of Obama’s strategy but broadly called for more specific details on the extent of U.S. involvement in the volatile region. Speaker John Boehner said he supports the plan to train Iraqi forces and Syrian rebels but is concerned that process could take years to implement. 
 
 “A speech is not the same thing as a strategy, however. While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act,” the Ohio Republican said. 
 
 Boehner has been part of a cadre of senior lawmakers who met with Obama and received classified briefings from the administration this week on the White House’s strategy to combat the Sunni militant group. 
 
 House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Republicans still “require a level of commitment to this fight against terrorism not yet seen by this president.” 
 
 “We must recognize ISIL is but a symptom of a broader terrorist threat that has been ignored for too long by this administration,” the California Republican said. “Preventing the next 9/11 requires us to confront the reality that Al Qaeda has metastasized, and that radical terrorists operating out of sanctuaries in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere pose a growing threat to the United States must be destroyed.” 
 
 House Republicans will hold an early morning conference meeting Thursday. 
 
 The chamber’s top Democrat, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, praised Obama for establishing a coalition to combat ISIL. 
 
 “I commend the president for his persistent, strong leadership in establishing a government of reconciliation in Iraq, and in his diplomatic efforts to have coordination among of our NATO allies and regional powers,” the Californian said. “Working with a broad coalition of partners and without using U.S. combat forces on the ground, we will lead a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy to dismantle the threat ISIS poses to the region and the United States.” 
 
 Obama’s proposals were panned by two Senate Democrats in tough reelection races who are eager to put distance between themselves and Obama. 
 
 “I will not give this president — or any other president — a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq,” said Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “As we have seen in the past, American boots on the ground cannot stamp out an extreme ideology, and the Iraqis must take responsibility for defending their own people.” 
 
 Alaska Sen. Mark Begich said he opposes Obama’s plan to arm Syrian rebels, saying, “The U.S. can’t continue to foot the bill of Middle East conflicts.” ||||| President Obama told congressional leaders at a White House meeting on Tuesday he doesn’t need their authorization to expand his military campaign against Islamic terrorists. 
 
 The president offered the assurance one day before a prime-time address he’s scheduled to give to the nation. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Wednesday’s address is a pivotal moment for the president just months before a midterm election season in which the Senate’s majority hangs in the balance. 
 
 Polls show that confidence in Obama’s foreign policy is eroding just as anxiety over the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has peaked. 
 
 Seven in 10 Americans believe the group has the ability to launch an attack against the United States, according to a CNN poll released Monday, while just 30 percent say Obama has presented a clear plan for dealing with the group. 
 
 The president is expected to use the speech to announce the expanded use of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq, as well as his administration’s efforts to build an international coalition to confront the terror threat. 
 
 The president is also weighing the possibility of airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria, as well as asking the United Nations to pass a binding resolution requiring governments to prevent the flow of foreign fighters to the region. 
 
 While Obama told the House and Senate leaders he would welcome congressional action that demonstrates a unified front, the president told the bipartisan group “he has the authority he needs to take action against (ISIS) in accordance with the mission he will lay out in his address,�? according to the White House. 
 
 Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called on Obama to better clarify his strategy this week, and the White House has said the president will offer a frank “assessment of this critical national security priority.�? 
 
 White House press secretary Josh Earnest cautioned that the address would not provide a timeline for the military campaign, nor was Obama expected to outline costs for the operation. 
 
 Just a year ago, Obama asked Congress to authorize military action against Syria after reports that the country’s military had used chemical weapons against its opponents. Obama argued he did not need Congress’s authority to launch strikes but responded to calls at the time from both parties that lawmakers be given a say in the decision. 
 
 Obama’s move appeared to backfire when it became clear his administration would lose a vote on the strikes. A diplomatic deal brokered in part by Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons for destruction, ended up canceling the vote. 
 
 Tuesday’s meeting with congressional leaders offered little additional insight into Obama’s plans, only reinforcing a growing sentiment that 12 months after the last Syria debate, lawmakers in both parties want to avoid a politically difficult authorization vote ahead of the midterm elections. 
 
 None of the four leaders present in the meeting mentioned the need for congressional action following the meeting, nor did they offer many clues as to what new strategy elements Obama might announce. 
 
 An aide to Speaker John Boehner John Andrew BoehnerChaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Former Boehner aide picked to lead oil and gas lobby: reports The next GOP leader needs political acumen — and a whole lot more MORE (R-Ohio) said the president used the meeting to lay out “some of the ideas he has already discussed publicly about how to combat this threat.�? 
 
 The official said Boehner John Andrew BoehnerChaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Former Boehner aide picked to lead oil and gas lobby: reports The next GOP leader needs political acumen — and a whole lot more MORE signaled support for the president if he decided to deploy the military to train and advise Iraqi forces or target ISIS leadership, and that the group also discussed training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition, which is battling both ISIS and the central government in Damascus. 
 
 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Obama spent the meeting offering “a valuable opportunity for consultation on advancing security and stability in the region and beyond.�? 
 
 “I’m just waiting for the president’s speech tomorrow,�? added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Harry Mason ReidThe Memo: Trump allies want to turn midterms into 'impeachment referendum' GOP moves to cut debate time for Trump nominees Harry Reid: ‘The less we talk about impeachment, the better off we are’ MORE (D-Nev.). “I’m glad to have been at the White House, had a little preview of it, I look forward to it.�? 
 
 It’s not clear how the president’s declaration that he does not need a vote to pursue his expanded military strategy will play on Capitol Hill. 
 
 While some congressional aides have suggested most lawmakers would like to avoid a vote, several bills have been offered to give the president Congress’s authority to take further actions against ISIS. 
 
 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellBlankenship defends 'Chinaperson' amid further attacks on McConnell Republicans confirming Trump's court nominees at record pace Chaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star MORE (R-Ky.), speaking before the meeting with the president, said he believed Obama should seek some sort of congressional approval “because that’s the way you hear from those of us who represent everyone in the country.�? 
 
 “He really ought to be asking for our support whether or not he may think he’s authorized to do what he intends to do. I think it would be in his best interests and the country’s best interests,�? he added. 
 
 An aide later clarified that McConnell was not necessarily demanding a vote on a new use-of-force resolution, and some prominent GOP lawmakers — including Sens. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamOvernight Defense: US-backed forces launch Syria offensive against ISIS | Trump glows in Nobel Peace Prize chatter | Trump 'seriously thinking' about 'Space Force' Trump glows in Nobel Peace Prize chatter Graham: Liberals would ‘kill themselves’ if Trump won Nobel Prize MORE (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioThe Hill's Morning Report: Trump, Bibi tag-team on Iran Overnight Finance: Banks close in on Dodd-Frank relief | Inflation reaches threshold for Fed rate hikes | Rubio undercuts GOP tax message | Closing arguments in AT&T; trial Rubio: 'No evidence' that corporate tax cut is overwhelmingly benefiting workers MORE (R-Fla.) — have said Obama does not need explicit approval. 
 
 Separately, the White House said it was committed to working with Capitol Hill. Earnest said Tuesday that “dozens�? of members of both parties had received classified briefings from administration officials in the past week, and that every member of Congress would be welcomed to classified briefings on Thursday. 
 
 “That is an indication and just gives you a little snapshot of this administration’s commitment to robust consultation with Congress,�? Earnest said. 
 
 —Alexander Bolton contributed to this story. 
 
 This story was posted at 5:59 p.m. and updated at 6:19 p.m. and 8:22 p.m.
– President Obama will lay out his plan to cripple the Islamic State tomorrow night, and the Washington Post reports that he looks poised to order airstrikes in Syria. That controversial action probably won't come right away, but Obama has met with foreign policy experts and believes he is within his authority to do so when necessary. Obama met with congressional leaders today—John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi—and informed them that he would welcome congressional support but that he plans to broaden the attack on ISIS regardless, reports the AP. Afterward, none of the four talked about the necessity of an authorization vote, and both parties seem eager to avoid one before the midterms, reports the Hill. The first steps in the US strategy will likely be to expand airstrikes in Iraq, to beef up an international coalition against ISIS, and to provide more aid to groups on the ground that are fighting the militants in both Iraq and Syria. As for airstrikes in the latter country, which could be seen as helping Bashar al-Assad: ISIS "is not an organization that respects international boundaries," says former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy, who was among the experts who had dinner with the president last night. "You cannot leave them with a safe haven. I expect him to be very candid." Obama speaks at 9pm Eastern tomorrow.