A Russian combat vehicle collided with a U.S. armored vehicle in Syria on Aug. 25, reportedly injuring at least four American service members. It was clear from recently surfaced video that this was no accident, as the Russian vehicles appear to be recklessly and intentionally harassing the U.S. combat vehicles. Many Americans will want to reflexively push back against Russia. The course of action that best safeguards America's interests and security, however, is to end our pointless presence in Syria.

"We can't let them intimidate us!" the thinking goes. If the U.S. were to withdraw our troops from Syria, "the Russians would fill the void" and we would be in a weaker position. While such views may seem logical, the reality on the ground — and an assessment of the strategic environment in which these events have occurred — demands a different response.

President Barack Obama first sent U.S. troops into Syria in October 2015 to aid in the fight against Islamic State. It was always of questionable value to send American troops into a sovereign country in the middle of a civil war, but even if we accept the original premise, the ostensible military mission justifying the U.S. presence in Syria ended long ago.

The so-called ISIS caliphate was destroyed in late 2017 when we supported Syrian Democratic Forces in the liberation of ISIS' capital, Raqqa. Splintered, the caliphate was wiped off the map in March 2019 when the ISIS adherents lost the final holdout of Baghuz in Syria. There has been no valid military mission since. The longer we delay in withdrawing our troops from the region, the longer — and greater — will be our risk of eventually stumbling into an unnecessary war. Last week's clash with Russian troops is the latest incident, but far from the only one, that could have sparked a wider conflict.

In July, Maj. Gen. Kenneth Ekman, deputy commander of Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, said American and Russian troops in Syria have some type of contact "almost every day." The majority of the contacts are uneventful — but not all, as last week's collision demonstrated. Less than three weeks ago, U.S. and Syrian troops engaged in an armed clash that left a Syrian soldier dead.

Iranian militia leaders vowed revenge on U.S. troops in the region for the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in January. Any of these adversary forces — or the multitude of other violent jihadist organizations operating in Syria — could attack and kill American troops. There is no justification to continue asking our uniformed service members to risk their lives in the daily conduct of an operation without an attainable objective.

Remember, too, that President Donald Trump toyed with the idea three times between 2017 and 2019 of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Syria. Had he carried through with his boasts of withdrawal, this clash would never have happened, and we would not be saddled with the routine cost in blood and treasure required to support this unnecessary mission. Keeping our troops in Syria for the defense of civilian oil companies — only the latest in a long line of excuses for staying in Syria — is an egregious misuse of our troops.

There is one other important point worth highlighting: We need to get out of our heads the fallacious idea that "winning" Syria is some sort of prize to be coveted. It is not. Having American troops stationed there does nothing to safeguard our security, recklessly increases our chances of getting sucked into the conflicts of other nations or groups and weakens our own security by dissipating our troops' ability to prepare for potential great power conflicts which may arise in the future.

Remember also that if we withdraw from Syria, Russia won't be filling any void: It's had relations with Syria for decades, including airfields and seaports. But there is one other, significant fact on the ground to understand. Our armed presence in Syria with the SDF means that Damascus and Moscow don't have to worry about securing thousands of square miles of Syrian territory. If we left, Syrian and Russian troops would have to take on a greater security burden, costing both nations considerable sums of money and spreading thin their already weak troops.

Withdrawing from Syria is not a sign of weakness. It would not be "capitulating" to our adversaries. It would be the most wise, intelligent and beneficial course of action for the United States. As Trump himself once tweeted (a paraphrase of Sun Tzu): He who defends everywhere, defends nowhere. There is another nugget of military wisdom the president should consider: Don't risk losing a war by fighting an unnecessary battle.

Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments. He wrote this article for the Chicago Tribune.