[finnigan2]

I would guess that given the known danger in the area that these soldiers were in, that some some lower ranking officer such as a lieutenant, is in a lot of trouble right now for assigning only two soldiers, without backup, in an area where terrorists were known to be present in force. Such a deployment borders on stupidity or negligence or both.

[ordinaryguy]

for assigning only two soldiers, without backup, in an area where terrorists were known to be present in force.

That was my impression at first too, but apparently there were around a dozen soldiers there at the time of the attack, and the three became separated. The article sort of alludes to that, but isn't really well written. If I have any of the detail wrong, someone else can chime in. I'm still unclear on much of it, and don't know whether an official version has been released.

[Alberta's Child]

I would guess that given the known danger in the area that these soldiers were in, that some some lower ranking officer such as a lieutenant, is in a lot of trouble right now for assigning only two soldiers, without backup, in an area where terrorists were known to be present in force. Such a deployment borders on stupidity or negligence or both.

So does a deployment of only 130,000 troops to occupy a hostile nation the size of California populated by 30+ million people. Which "officer" in the U.S. military is in a lot of trouble right now for making that decision?