WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Tuesday he has the authority he needs to launch a broader military campaign to root out violent extremists in Iraq and Syria, a day before outlining his plans to the American people in a prime-time address. 
 
 FILE - In this Aug. 7, 2014 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington. The president will make a televised address Wednesday night to outline... (Associated Press) 
 
 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, says it's time for President Barack Obama to "exercise some leadership in launching a response" to the Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria,... (Associated Press) 
 
 House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio waits to speak on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014, following a Republican strategy session after returning from a five-week recess. Boehner said Islamic... (Associated Press) 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. arrives to speak with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014, before joining other congressional leaders at the White House for a meeting... (Associated Press) 
 
 President Barack Obama meets with Congressional leaders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014, to discuss options for combating the Islamic State. From left are,... (Associated Press) 
 
 President Barack Obama talks with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014. The president met with Congressional leaders to discuss... (Associated Press) 
 
 The White House said the president told lawmakers he still would welcome action from Congress that "would aid the overall effort and demonstrate to the world that the United States is united in defeating the threat from ISIL." That could take the form of specific authorization to fund counterterrorism efforts, as well as to train and equip more moderate elements of the opposition to the Bashar Assad government in Syria. 
 
 The president's broader strategy to confront the Islamic State militants may also include more wide-ranging airstrikes against targets in Iraq and possibly in Syria. Obama has also sought military and political commitments from Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. 
 
 "The president believes this is a high national security priority," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. 
 
 For Obama, a sustained U.S. intervention in the Middle East is at odds with the vision he had for the region when he ran for president on a pledge to end the war in Iraq, where the role of American fighting forces drew to a close nearly three years ago. The timing of his announcement Wednesday night was all the more striking, with Obama's address to the nation scheduled just hours before anniversary commemorations of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that drew the U.S. into war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
 
 Even before Obama's meeting with Senate and House leaders, some lawmakers had suggested a congressional vote on the president's plans was unlikely before the midterm elections in November. 
 
 "As a practical matter, I don't really see the time that it would take to really get this out and have a full debate and discuss all the issues," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. 
 
 However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Obama should seek congressional approval for whatever he has decided to do. 
 
 "I think it is to his advantage and the country's advantage to have Congress buy into that," McConnell said before joining other Republican and Democratic leaders in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon for a meeting with Obama that lasted just over an hour. 
 
 None of the leaders spoke to reporters as they left the White House. 
 
 However, an aide to House Speaker John Boehner said the Ohio Republican expressed support for efforts to increase the effectiveness of the Iraqi security forces and for equipping the Syrian opposition. Boehner also said he would support the deployment of U.S. military personnel to Iraq in a training and advisory role and to "assist with lethal targeting" of Islamic State leadership, according to the aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting. 
 
 Beyond authorizing military force, Congress could show its support for a broader mission by authorizing two initiatives Obama outlined earlier this year: $5 billion to fund counterterrorism missions and $500 million for arming and training Western-backed Syrian rebels. 
 
 The U.S. is already launching airstrikes against Islamic State targets inside Iraq, a mission undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi government and without formal authorization from Congress. But the scope of the mission has been relatively limited to strikes that help protect American interests in the region and prevent humanitarian crises. 
 
 U.S. officials say Obama is expected to loosen those limitations and open a broader counterterrorism campaign against the militants in Iraq. And following the group's shocking beheading of two American journalists in Syria, Obama began more seriously considering extending strikes into Syria. 
 
 People who have spoken with Obama in recent days said it appeared likely he would take that step. At a private dinner Monday night with foreign policy experts, Obama emphasized the importance of viewing the Islamic State as one organization, not two groups separated by a border. 
 
 Obama's spokesman has said the president is willing "to go wherever is necessary to strike those who are threatening Americans." However, Obama has continued to rule out sending U.S. troops into ground combat operations in the Middle East. 
 
 In a shift for a war-weary nation, new polls suggest the American people would support a sustained air campaign. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday showed 71 percent of Americans support airstrikes in Iraq, up from 54 percent just three weeks ago. And 65 percent say they support extending airstrikes into Syria. 
 
 Taking that latter step would raise legal and geopolitical issues that Obama has long sought to avoid, particularly without formal congressional authorization. 
 
 Unlike in Iraq, Obama would not be acting at the invitation of a host government. However, some international law experts say airstrikes could be justified as a matter of self-defense if Obama argues the Islamic State poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies from inside Syria, whose government is unwilling or unable to stop it. 
 
 Another possibility: Although the U.S. has said it will not coordinate with Syrian President Assad, his government could give back-channel consent to American strikes. The U.S. has a similar arrangement with the Pakistani military for U.S. drone strikes there, even though Pakistani officials publicly condemn the American actions. 
 
 Obama would still have to contend with the notion that American strikes against the Islamic State were actually helping Assad, who has overseen Syria's bloody civil war. The U.S. has long called for Assad to leave power, and the Islamic State is one of the groups inside Syria that is seeking to oust him. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Associated Press reporters Donna Cassata, Bradley Klapper, David Espo, Alan Fram, and Robert Burns contributed to this report. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC ||||| 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 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 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.