EA on the website put it pretty well. The difference between lawful and unlawful orders is clear. New refused to obey a lawful order and you can't have that in the military. Period.
If he really believes that there is a problem with the way the U.S. military supports the U.N. and he personally did not want to do so then he chose the right course. And should accept the consequences. Once he has been cashiered he should make a large stink and work within our political system to change the relationship we have with the U.N. That's why our system is set up the way it is.
I don't believe that by working with the U.N. he would have been violating his oath. Our elected officials have determined that having treaties with the U.N. or with any other country for that matter is a good method for protecting ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic. If New was allowed to act on his opinion, which differed from that of our elected officials and his chain of command, without punishment, the next thing we could expect is cowardly soldiers refusing to do dangerous things because they don't believe their oath requires them to do so. Sorry no go.
If you have a fundamental problem with the idea of the U.S. military supporting the U.N. your problem is a political one. Solve it through political means.
Now, we ask ourselves, what about the fact that he said he would go as long as he didn't have to wear the U.N. insignia? Isn't that the real issue he brought up? That he didn't mind supporting the U.N. as long he could do so as an American soldier? The example given of the soldiers in Lebanon who were lumped in with all the other U.N. soldiers captured and therefore effectively abandoned by the U.S. is a disturbing one. In that case the person who made the decision to think of our men just like we thought of the other U.N. peacekeepers should be dragged out from behind his desk and shot. If that was New's concern he had a legitimate beef. As a U.S. soldier you have a right to expect that you will not be left behind, even by politicians.
So conclusion:
If he refused to wear the insignia because he believed it violated his oath he's just silly and deserved a dishonorable discharge.
If he has a problem with the way the US supports the UN he has a legitimate beef but picked a stupid time and method to make an issue of it, and deserves a dishonorable discharge.
If he believed that he would be left hanging by our country, as those soldiers in Lebanon were, then, again, he had a legitimate beef. But pains are taken in the article to tell us that his personal safety was not his concern. So this is pretty much a moot point.
The question I ask myself now is, if I were asked to go and do something dangerous for the U.N. as a U.N. soldier who just happened to be American, what would I do? I would do it. I honestly don't believe our government would abandon me. I haven't researched it and don't have time to right now but I suspect there was a little more to the American U.N. soldiers in Lebanon issue than, "U.S. government thinks of them like any other U.N. soldier therefore they die."
I'm looking forward to seeing where the discussion on this goes from here.
