This is a good decision regardless of who made it or why. U.S. forces are lightning rods and are not appropriate for “peacekeeping” missions. Only truly neutral countries are suitable for such roles, because there is no incentive to gain revenge or “street credibility” by attacking them. Because we are targets, American troops must always be ready to fight, and therefore must never be deployed in the relatively defenseless postures that are inherent to “peacekeeping” missions. We are a superpower and we always have a motive.
I’m not in the least disturbed by it. Didn’t even know there were any peacekeepers in Sinai. What intrigues me is having robocops there, or flight drones, and how being in a military position would have effected Asimov’s Three Laws of robotics. So I redid them for Islamic Jihad Drones, and started a story.
You might note my post 12. This was never a UN mission. Any was initially a US mission, as a treaty signatory, till we could pass it off to a non UN force. As I noted I’m not sure there was much to do there the last few years anyway, but imo it doesn’t look good backing down on a treaty obligation stating publically it’s because of ISIS. Egypt and Israel seem to be cooperating fighting terror in the Sinai since al Sisi arrived, my guess the multinational force is likely in the way anyway, why not quietly move them out of the way.