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.
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.
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?