I agree that the "blame" for this situation lies with the BS. The organizations who chartered troops did so based on a current policy. If the policy changed, it is completely understandable that those organizations would be unable to continue the agreement because it would violate their own stance.
The BS were aware, more than any other, who their sponsors were. In my opinion, they changed their stance, and INTENTIONALLY passed the buck. It's really easy to blame their sponsors when they KNEW the decision would result in this kind of consequence. They hope to come out smelling like a rose.
A Christian father gives a nice young man his blessing to date his daughter. He makes it very clear to the young man that he expects the him to treat her with respect, and to follow the father's house rules. He expects her to be home by 11:00 curfew, to not use drugs or alcohol, or engage in sexual activity.
After a couple of months, the young man decides that he wants to do things his own way. He buys some alcohol and a little weed. He convinces her that it's no big deal, and that everybody does it. She drinks and smokes with him, and eventually, they sleep together.
When she makes it home - after curfew, it's obvious to the Father what has happened. He questions her, and she admits everything. He calls the young man, and asks for a visit. The young man makes his case that he loves her, plans to marry her, that what they did isn't really that bad, and the father should just forgive him so they can move forward. The father tells the young man to stay away from his daughter.
Is the father wrong? He gave the man his blessing based on who he presented himself as initially. When his character changed, the father no longer allowed the man to have a relationship with his daughter. As a Christian, should he have just forgiven him and overlooked his behavior, even though it was contradictory to his family's values?