That boils it down to the most fundamental issue, and we should also analyze the circumstance as a whole to see that this is exactly what West was able to do.
Colonel West violated the rules in a relatively minor way in a very time-critical, combat set of conditions. In so doing he not only was able to accomplish his mission (securing and pacifying the area)...he was able to do so while minimizing the loss of American life. He displayed admirable qualitities of discretion, judgement and accountability in the circumstances he was presented with which allowed him to secure the outcome he did in the time frame presented him.
That outcome demands a review of the rules in this case IMHO, because had he adhered, in all likelihood he would not have prevented or thwarted the attack (therefore not fulfilling his mission) and he would most likely have lost more lives than he did (which was zero for this particular set of circumstances).
So, while some verbal reminder to him of the importance of adhereing to the written rules may be in order...he should also be recognized and lauded for his willingness to put himself and his own career on the line in order to achieve the accomplishment of his mission with minimum US losses. Such wllingness to sacrifice and put himself at personal risk in order to accomplish the mission would, at another time, be called "service above and beyond the call of duty".
Had he failed...had he not thwarted the attack or found that there was not attack...then his actions would have potentially warranted a more severe reprimand and a mark on his military record...potentially even a justifiable court martial.
But that's not what happened. If everything is as it appears in all of the reports I have read about this, then he took the risk...and it was a personal one...it panned out and the mission was accomplished and lives were saved. That warrants our respect and our praise IMHO.
All of that pretty much some up my own thoughts on the matter.