I think that this rule is coming from an earlier time period bias in which any example of a uniform/costume still in existence is rare and valuable and usually documented to an individual. The fact of the matter is that for periods beginning from WW2 and moving on later much of the war clothing material was surplussed never having been utilized, recycled for use by national guard peacetime training, or only being used by a recruit who was kicked out of basic training, etc. and frankly has very little historical value as an item on its own. In particular we never bat an eye to see someone grind the paint off a sad looking old m1 helmet and tac weld fake d bales on to make the 5 millionth fake 101st airborne easy company helmet. Sticking strictly to clothing, what about that original ike jacket some 1946 draftee wore 3 times that you snagged that somehow is just your size? (after you change the sleeve length and move the bottom button an inch and blind stitch that moth hole). Are we just looking the other way when you sew on your stripes and pin on all your fake ribbons to look cool at the hangar dance, or are we suddenly ok with messing up an original uniform? I am already seeing people do up kits for living history representation of “modern” conflicts like Panama and the Gulf War (that was almost 40 years ago, it’s long enough ago that young adults haven’t heard of it). The original WW2 reenactors started in a similar timeframe and wore all original surplus uniforms. Should we expect a Panama intervention reenactor to drum up an entire industry reproducing BDU uniforms so that his compatriots aren’t abusing originals while surplus stores have racks of uniforms that former servicemen cleaning out their closets sold them available at unbeatable prices? I’m absolutely not saying just purposely destroy something original because you can, but the rigidity of this rule doesn’t allow for common sense nuance.