WASHINGTON — When U.S. President Donald Trump said last month he would withdraw 1,000 U.S. special forces from northeast Syria, Europe was up in arms.

European governments denounced the ensuing Turkish invasion and its disastrous humanitarian consequences for the Kurds, warned of a potential resurgence of terror groups, and criticized Trump’s abandonment of his allies.

And they were right to speak out: Trump’s decision will have a much greater impact on European security than America’s. But moral condemnation and expression of concern are cheap currency. European leaders cannot absolve themselves of the blame for the current situation in Syria: Their inaction helped bring us here.

That the U.S. president chose to pull troops out of Syria was entirely predictable. For years, he has said the U.S. is overcommitted in the Middle East and should let others take over the job. On the 2016 campaign trail, he said his goal was to destroy ISIS and get out. More recently, in April 2018, he claimed it was time to “bring our troops back home.” He reiterated that statement in December of that year, prompting the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

On every occasion, Europeans reacted the same way: condemning the move and trying to change the president’s mind, often in cooperation with some of his closest advisers. Instead of preparing for the inevitable, Europeans thought they could rely on the “adults in the room” — a thinning group of advisers with the power to, supposedly, change the president’s mind or even circumvent the Oval Office all together.

European leaders cannot absolve themselves of the blame for the current situation in Syria: Their inaction helped bring us here.

That approach clearly isn’t working. European leaders are still hoping Trump will see reason. But what if he doesn’t? They should have learned the lesson by now: The U.S. president does what he says he will do.

The president’s statements after the operation against ISIS leader Abu Bakr-Al Baghdadi in October show what Europe can expect in the future. He sees the U.S. as having gone it alone in the region and wants out. In his remarks, Trump thanked Russia, Turkey and the Kurds for their help. He named the American citizens murdered by ISIS in his remarks but made no reference to attacks against Europe, and made only one mention of Europe’s involvement during the Q&A session that followed to express his “disappointment” that the Continent had not taken back more ISIS fighters with European citizenship.

Trump’s brutal criticism of Europeans is, as often, exaggerated. Of the 11,000 ISIS fighters estimated to be held in Northeast Syrian jails, some 9,000 hold Iraqi or Syrian citizenship and only very few hold European citizenship. Europeans have been active members of the coalition against ISIS and contributed to the reconstruction of the regions liberated from ISIS. They’ve also started to ramp up their defense spending.

But the U.S. president’s main point holds. Europeans have an interest in preventing the re-emergence of terror groups and new waves of uncontrolled migration, but they have relied on Washington to do most of the heavy lifting.

It’s time to imagine another scenario: What if, after Trump’s election — or at least after he declared his intention to bring the troops home — the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland had decided to join forces, pool resources and train European troops to be sent to the region.

To be sure, such a complete shift in strategy would have required tremendous courage. And some will argue that European troops would not have the same firepower as the troops of a global superpower like the U.S. But taking over from the U.S. in northeastern Syria would not have been beyond Europeans’ material capabilities. European governments could have coordinated with the Pentagon to ensure a progressive handover of the management of a safe zone in the region.

If that seems far-fetched at the moment, it’s only to Europe’s detriment. For the Continent’s leaders, there is no other option but to step up and take on a greater role on foreign policy. This would show there's more to calls for “strategic autonomy” and a “geopolitical Europe” than lofty rhetoric.

Those tempted to wait out the end of Trump’s term and hope for a more assertive Middle East policy from a potential Democratic administration will be disappointed. Democratic presidential candidates have bashed Trump for the execution of his withdrawal from Syria, but few have rushed to say they would overturn it.

“I don’t think we should have troops in the Middle East,” the Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said during an October debate, as Turkish troops were moving in to Syria.

European leaders are still hoping Trump will see reason. But what if he doesn’t?

The other reason Europeans can’t afford to sit on their hands? Trump may very well be reelected for a second term next year. Should that happen, European leaders won’t be able to say they didn’t have the time to prepare — only that they chose not to.

Benjamin Haddad is the director of the Future Europe Initiative at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. He is the author of “Le paradis perdu: L’Amérique de Trump et la fin des illusions européennes” (Grasset, 2019).