The current conflict in Syria—between the government forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and various rebel groups—has displaced over four million refugees, most of whom have fled into neighboring countries; in particular, Turkey and Lebanon have borne the brunt of the crisis, with over a million refugees in various camps within those countries. News coverage of this crisis in the West has heightened in recent weeks and months due to a series of tragic incidents and the decisions by various European countries to open their borders to Syrian refugees. In the face of mounting pressure, the White House announced last Thursday that the United States would welcome at least 10,000 more Syrian refugees.

This is clearly insufficient—10,000 refugees is a mere fraction of those displaced by the conflict, many of whom are currently living in destitute conditions in refugee camps. It is incumbent on Western nations and Gulf states to relocate the Syrian refugees, both because it is the right thing to do and because of the risk in keeping four million people in permanent state of poverty and lack of access to resources.

Even with last week’s announcement, the United States could still play a more proactive role in combating the current crisis by admitting more refugees into the country and by cooperating with its allies in the region to make living conditions in the existing camps less harsh. There have been various calls for the U.S. to accept more refugees—with numbers ranging from 65,000 to 100,000. Other nations—in Western Europe and in the Middle East—should take similar steps as well if they have not already done so, and especially if they have the wealth and resources to handle an influx of refugees. The dire situation in existing camps puts a moral imperative on the West and the wealthier Arab states to address the crisis in a humanitarian way.

It is, of course, not a simple solution, for the U.S. or for other nations: Resettling such a large number of refugees presents a difficult problem. A state willing to provide shelter also needs to bear the cost of providing housing, employment and social benefits. Similarly, an influx of a large number of migrants may be followed by ethnic tensions fueled by anti-immigrant sentiment.

Nevertheless, the consequences and potential risks of not lending aid far outweigh the costs. Leaving four million refugees to suffer in the poor living conditions of refugee camps with little in the way of resource or recourse is not an option.

Resettlement, however, would not provide a long-term solution to the Syrian crisis; the flood of refugees out of that region will likely only escalate as conflicts in Syria and Iraq continue. Ideally, any solution for the relocation of refugees would be coupled with more comprehensive, more aggressive, and less reactive strategy for dealing with violence in the region.

The risks that Syrian refugees are taking to flee from that violence reflect the gravity of their situation. Leaving the displaced in impoverished conditions is certain to pose further complications to the already volatile situation in the Middle East. The onus is on the United States and European and Arab countries to help solve this crisis.