As I understand it, the term Battlespace Owner means that a Commander has been given effective total command -- with some exceptions -- over everything and everyone who enters, crosses or operates in a specified geographical area.

The control is total except for some SOF elements / missions and occasional other exceptions, a Battlespace Owner thus can dictate how units in his area not directly subordinate to him can or cannot operate.

I appreciate the need for delegation of authority, for accountability and for unity of command, however, it has been my observation that the thought processes of well trained Armor, Mech Infantry, Cavalry, Light Infantry and Artillery commanders vary slightly to considerably with respect to TTPs and thus perhaps a potential for friction (Clausewitzian style...) occurs when a dictatorial Light Infantry Commander has local FA elements operating in both the fire support and infantry modes...

What effect this approach has on the so-called 'human terrain' aspects of FID and COIN support is not known by me but I can see a potential for excessive focus on geography and control to the detriment of concentration on the Mission -- or as the British used to more correctly call it, the Aim.

Without getting into the details, specifics about current ops or anything that remotely violates OpSec but with an eye toward US doctrine for conflicts in general, I have two questions:

Is that understanding essentially correct?

Is the concept wise and / or combat effective?