Why does President Obama's latest iteration of his evolving policy for dealing with ISIS leave me cold? Maybe because it seems politically calculated, and not plain speech from the Commander in Chief,j and maybe because his clear reluctance to approve a full bore military campaign against ISIS raises questions about the likelihood that he will actually complete the mission.  

Equally,  I fear that he is not very interested in protecting the victims of ISIS, especially Christians. Iraqi Christians have never received much sympathy from him — at least not if you judge his public statements on ISIS. His supporters might argue that  a U.S. president must focus on national security threats, when announcing a new or expanded foreign and military policy. But this administration has marshaled support for other human rights concerns, just not Christians.

This time, the president oulined a plan that was weak on substance, but more serious in tone, seeking, perhaps for the first time, to secure the American people's support for an extended campaign to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS.  He stated

 This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Experts from both sides of the aisle have raised questions about whether the plan will likely achieve its stated objective — a matter of supreme interest to Americans who seek to protect th region's beleaguered religious minorities. 

The new plan featured stepped U.S. airstrikes on ISIS positions in Iraq, and now Syria. He talked about the international coalition that would join with the U.S. to fight ISIS, and plans to train "moderate" Syrian rebel groups, but offered few particulars. He emphasized that U.S. troops would not be sent to fight ISIS directly, though 475 more military advisers will be sent to Iraq. All of these steps, he said, would pave the way for U.S. Military planners to help their allies on the ground "reclaim" territory taken  by the terrorist organization,

And what of the humanritian crisis created by ISIS' srategy of religious cleansing in Iraq and Syria? The president referenced the suffering of "tens of thousands of Christians," but his timeframe offered little reassurance that help would arrive soon. That is cold comfort for those who have lost their homes and their livelihoods, and now must fight for humanitarian assistance in overcrowded refugee settlements in Kurdistan and elsewhere. 

Americans who understand the urgent need for immediate action to protect Christians and other religious minorities know that it is almost too late to roll back the devastating impact of the ISIS juggernaut. Refugee resettlement groups report that many displaced Christians have said they do not want to return to their communities.

During the past few days, Catholic and Orthodox leaders from the MIddle East have gathered in Washington to bring their urgent concerns to U.S. lawmakers and to discuss fast-moving events in their homeland. Most have already implored Washington to intervene, as one Iraqi Christian town after the next has been evacuated under threat of death. Obama's slowly evolving policy for addressing ISIS has thus been a deep disappointment for them. Tomorrow the Register will post our coverage of that landmark conference sponsored by a new organization with an important mandate, "In Defense of Christians."

Those who wish to offer direct support for humanitarian aid to displaced Christians should consider the Knights of Columbus, who have pledged  to match donations.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, in a 9/11 post on his blog, offered the latest news of ongoing attacks on Christians in Iraq, and his stories remind us that a leisurely timeframe for "degrading" and maybe destorying ISIS won't cut it. 

Father Paolo Mikko, the local parish priest, tells us how the ISIS forces drove the ancient Christian community from Erbil, in Iraqui Kurdistan:  militants of the “Islamic Caliphate” took over churches and convents, burned crosses, statues, and the Bible, and instructed the few Christians who could not flee to “convert to Islam, pay a protection task – - or die.”  

Can we depend on President Obama to stay the course and stop the religious cleansing? I have my doubts, but hope I am proved wrong.

He came to office convinced that it was time to let other nations confront the outliers in the world.  Many Americans still agree with that vision. But now that ISIS poses a threat to U.S. national security, even as it works to eradicate religious minorities from the territory it controls, he has been forced to return to the battlefield.

Prudence is essential in a Commander in Chief, and we should be glad that our president did not come into office eagerr to find a pretext for military intervention. But now he must convince himself, his generals, his allies and the American people that the mission is to destroy, and not merely contain a monstrous enemy.