“the fire was allowed to continue to burn…” This is more complicated than it may seem.
–it may be that conditions were benign for a controlled burn and then rapidly got out of hand
–it may be that cutbacks to funding diminished the response time of agencies and crews
–it certainly is true that the forest service has been damned for their old, long standing fire suppression policy, with good reason
–the alternative has been “let it burn” policy in order to slowly, slowly attempt to undo the damage from the previous policy
–whatever might go wrong will go wrong, eventually
–hence, the forest service didn’t “allow” the fire to burn into its current catastrophic dimensions. The fire got out of hand.
Why that is has yet to be determined. Yes, in retrospect, the controlled blaze should have never occurred or been better controlled, obviously. Bu then people would have complained about how the forest service suppresses fires and allows brush and trees to grow beyond self regulation by, yes, fires.