I have been in a similar situation recently in what I guess is the same area of the Med. The restrictions in place were a ‘two can rule’ and confinement to camp. Both of these restrictions only applied to those deployed on Operations; neither applied to those who were there on an overseas posting.
Firstly, if the result of the restriction is a direct result of someone else’s misdoings/actions, then this can be seen as a group/collective punishment. In this scenario, I would quite happily ‘press to test’ and I would quite happily ignore any restrictions.
If the restrictions were applied to all members of the armed forces in the local vicinity, as a direct result of perceived repercussions to an incident e.g. threats made by the local populous towards member of the armed forces, then this probably would be seen as a reasonable and proportional restriction and one that should be obeyed.
To those claiming that all orders should be followed…. Rubbish. An order needs to be proportional and legal.
I have always found it ridiculous, as member of the military who has never been in trouble, sober or otherwise, to be told how to conduct myself in time outside of work as result of someone else’s cockup. As an adult, with a wife, children, and a mortgage, I am more than capable of deciding where I go and what I drink (whilst complying with the laws governing alcohol and aviation). During my time at the same place, I would quite happily and openly drink an amount of alcohol THAT I deemed reasonable. Despite at times it being more than the ‘2 cans’, I never once found myself fighting or drink driving. Nor as a result did I have ever have other people punished as a result of my actions.
In short, if you are being confined to camp as result of someone elses actions, then you would be in contravention of a 'standing order'; The fact that this standing order is unreasonable, I would quite happily disregard.