Ken Noe hits the nail on the head in his comment on Eric's blog that a significant problem in discussing New Military History is that there is no accepted definition of the term. How inclusive is the term meant to be? Depending on your definition, Noe's excellent study of the Perryville campaign can probably be placed in either "camp" -- Eric has it as a traditional military study while Kevin Levin marks it as a good model of New Military History.
In my mind, NMH is defined as the attempt to broaden the examination of military history as much as possible, integrating into the narrative all manner of societal issues such as politics, economics, race, gender, class, and regional considerations. Strategy, operational movements, and tactics are not the focus of the narrative, but rather another contributing element perhaps no more prominent than the other considerations mentioned above. To me, the most representative example of New Military History is George Rable's Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!. I think I counted pages and found less than 20% of the book was devoted to a tactical overview of the fight. Of course, simply counting pages to determine relative importance is ridiculous, but it gives you some idea of where emphasis is placed.
Back to where Noe's Perryville (or the equally great Wilson's Creek history by Piston & Hatcher for that matter) study fits into the spectrum, I would maintain that the firm centerpiece of both books is what we could call traditional battle history, with other issues placed in a 'supporting role'...NMH-lite to perhaps put it crudely. Noe puts it well himself "I attempted to bring elements of the “new military history” into a traditional narrative that would appeal to academics and non-academics. I’ve been praised and criticized both for not doing more of that. Frankly, I found the traditional framework darned seductive." If NMH can be interpreted broadly enough to include these two books, then I don't believe the concept to be worthy of generalized scorn.