The latest series of tit-for-tat attacks in Syria have failed to protect American troops. On Monday, Iran-backed militias conducted another rocket attack against U.S. troops following a U.S. drone strike meant to deter further attacks. This was not the first time U.S. servicemembers have been attacked in Syria, nor the first time the United States has engaged in a retaliatory attack against these militias. Rather, this is nearly the eightieth time since President Joe Biden took office that U.S. troops have been attacked in Syria and Iraq. It is incumbent on Washington to withdraw these troops before more American troops pay the price for their leaders’ inaction.

    It is unlikely that a corner has been turned after nearly eighty failed attempts to establish deterrence. More likely, future attacks will remind Washington that it cannot bomb its adversaries into compliance. These groups can impose costs in American blood for as long as U.S. troops are there. Washington has no strategic reasons to stay in a region with abundant pitfalls and few benefits. By contrast, these groups are endemic and exist largely to expel the U.S. presence in the region. That means that these militias simply have to run down the clock. They will persist until U.S. troops leave while Washington stays until the futility of the U.S. presence is acknowledged.

    The considerable risk incurred by U.S. servicemembers has to be commensurate with the benefits to the United States. In Iraq and Syria, this is not the case. ISIS, the chief justification for U.S. involvement, has dwindled to an entity with no territory and virtually no resources, and whose leadership has been so thoroughly attrited that their identities are largely unknown.

    Ironically, maintaining a military presence in Iraq and Syria also undermines the aim of containing Iran. The U.S. presence gives Iran leverage over these Iraqi and Syrian militias, allowing Iran to expand its influence by co-opting local groups opposed to Washington’s occupation of their country. Iran’s influence on Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, for instance, has effectively capitalized on anti-American sentiment to shift Iraq’s political and military apparatuses to align with Tehran.

    True deterrence is better established by letting locals take the lead role. Saudi Arabia and Iran, in the absence of American leadership, recently negotiated their way toward peaceful, albeit not friendly, relations. Washington’s influence was neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to enable this success; it was an impediment whose absence was a blessing.

    Iran’s reach is also not as dominating as Washington’s fear-mongering might suggest. Washington has brought unlikely partners together; many Iraqi Shia are wary of Iran’s specific theocratic model of Wilayat al-Faqih, the guardianship of the jurist, while the Syrian regime historically preferred alignment with its Arab neighbors. In Washington’s absence, it’s likely that Iran’s sphere of influence would contract in the face of organic pushback.

    Neither ISIS nor Iran nor any other faux-justification is a reason to stay in Iraq and Syria. The latest tit-for-tat drone attacks prove that the same formula doesn’t produce different results. It was tried under President Donald Trump, and it failed. It was tried under Biden, and it failed again. The status quo does not work for the benefit of the United States, its troops, or its people. It needs to be upended.

    The United States has just passed two decades of its presence in Iraq. In this timespan, Washington’s meddling has exacerbated sectarianism, unduly risked the security of American troops, and maintained a status quo with dubious and unclear aims. There must be an end to the failed policies of the past. As rockets and drones continue to target U.S. troops, Washington has a choice to make. It can continue to put brave servicemen and women in harm’s way needlessly, or it can pursue a safer, smarter path by bringing them home.