Earnest suggested Obama would follow the example of the Osama bin Laden kill raid – an operation he authorized without permission from Pakistan

Iraq's faltering government invited the US to take action against ISIS, but Bashar al-Assad hasn't rolled out Syria's welcome mat

A Senate aide told MailOnline that his boss, who sits on that body's Armed Services Committee, would be 'beyond upset' if Obama acts unilaterally

A House Armed Services Committee spokesman says Obama first needs to articulate a clear strategy to defeat ISIS – which he hasn't done

The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is prepared to go it alone – 'regardless of borders' – if he decides to launch airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) inside Syria.



'I'm not going to speculate about what sort of congressional approval would be requested or required' if the president decided to chase ISIS across the invisible border between Iraq and Syria, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

He noted that Obama 'has not made a decision to order additional military action in Syria.'

But 'the president has already demonstrated a willingness,' Earnest insisted, 'to use military force to protect the American people, regardless of borders.'

Scroll down for video

No Congress, no problem: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest won't say what kind of permission Obama might need before attacking ISIS inside Syria

Happy warrior: Obama headed back to Washington from his vacation paradise on Martha's Vineyard Sunday night, but not before posing for photos with a cheering airport throng

America's recent mini-campaign of targeted airstrikes against ISIS positions in northern Iraq is in part the result of an engraved invitation from the topsy-turvy government in Baghdad.

No such welcome has been extended by Bashar al-Assad, the decidedly anti-American dictator in Damascus.

ISIS enjoys influence across a wide swath of land in both Iraq and Syria, presenting the Pentagon with the possibility that decisive victories in Iraq could drive the group to safe haven in Assad's country.

Defeating them there could present the Pentagon with an unwelcome outcome if the terror group's forces regroup inside Syria.

ISIS also represents a threat to Assad's rule, meaning that crushing ISIS once and for all could have the unintended consequence of strengthening the strongman.

Calling on the example of Navy SEAL raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, Earnest suggested Monday that Assad's assent to chase ISIS past where Iraqi territory ends wouldn't be required.

'The United States was not invited in by the Pakistani government' to take out bin Laden, Earnest reminded reporters.

'That was a decision the president made.'

But members of Congress were kept in the loop about the bin Laden raid for months as tactical options were weighed.

One aide to a Republican who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee told MailOnline that if Obama were to make a unilateral move in Syria, his boss 'would be beyond upset.'

'No one wants it to come to that, given how much friction there already is between the White House and about half of [Capitol] Hill right now,' he said.

A spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee told MailOnline that Rep. Buck McKeon, the committee's chairman, is even more concerned with Obama's failure to present Congress and the American people with a coherent strategy for defeating ISIS.

Earnest took pains to point out that Obama had 'hosted a meeting here the last week that Congress was in town' in July, 'where he invited up members – both Democrats and Republicans, from both the House and the Senate – to talk through some of these issues.'

Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (L) could be a big winner if Obama sweeps into his country and rids it of ISIS, but Rep. Buck McKeon (R) says Obama hasn't come up with a plan to fight ISIS -- much less a request to Congress for military authority

'There's also consultation that can be done, and has been done, at the staff level,' Earnest said.

'But in terms of what may be required if the president were to take or order a specific action, I'm just not in a position to speculate.'

Obama sought permission from Congress nearly a year ago to launch military strikes against Assad, after international observers reported that his regime used chemical weapons against rebel groups that had opposed him since 2011.

'The military has positioned assets in the region,' he said in an August 31, 2013 speech. 'We are prepared to strike whenever we choose, and I am prepared to give that order.'

But he added that he would 'seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.'

Obama made it clear then that he believed he had the authority to strike without the say-so of Congress, but said that he believed America would emerge 'stronger' if he involved legislators.

Earnest said Monday that there are no lessons to be taken from that episode.

'That was a different situation, right?' he said, 'precisely because what the president was talking about in that scenario was ensuring that the Assad regime didn't use chemical weapons, or would pay a price for what the intel community had assessed was his use of chemical weapons.'

'What we're talking about now isn't the Assad regime, but about this threat that's posed by ISIL' – the White House's preferred name for ISIS – 'that's operating both in Iraq and in Syria.'

'These are complicated situations and they always will be,' Earnest added later.