I'm sorry, but excuse me - I am former military.
The story is inconsistent. There is discussion of an attack by Kuwati (now certified by intel as being Al Qa'eda), a firefight, a chase by MPs, and the eventual destruction of the original attackers by the MPs.
Now, I am not criticizing your version of events, but the outline provided in the posted story is, however you want to view it, inconsistent. If the marines didn't have bullets, then there was no firefight. If there was a skirmish when the MPs took matters into their own hands, then what occurred there might be a firefight, but one can hardly tell with the article as posted, now can they?
We are making a bunch of assumptions here based upon our view of the world (through either active or former military prisms, so to speak), and they are probably accurate - I'm not in question with these.
I was speaking to the article. (Which was, quite probably, not written by a military-literate person.)