Reminds me of when European governments advised Jews not to wear visible indicators of their relation because they're incapable of controlling their rabid mobs of anti-semites.
Seriously? I think the point here is that there is a fundamental difference between this instruction and victim blaming, in that this simply a pragmatic instruction designed to keep armed services members safe from harm. It hardly comes with the implicit shaming - "well, they deserved it if they got attacked" that comes with the way a victim is blamed after rape, and particularly does not entail the sense that the victim was somehow
lesser - "if she was wearing that then she's a slut". Which of course points to the larger dimension here - that while attitudes blaming women (or Jewish people in your example) from attack further contribute to the oppression of those groups, the armed forces are in no way oppressed.
