Adam,
Once upon a time, there were Tactical Air Command (TAC) and Strategic Air Command (SAC). If I'm following your argument correctly, you're asking 'Why doesn't the AF to SAC stuff and the Army take back TAC?'

To an extent, this is a defacto situation. The Army has some short range fixed wing airlift, and CAS capabilities in the form of the AH-64 Apache and other attack helicopters. The AF has the big stuff; nukes, space stuff, stealth aircraft, long range airlift like the C-17s etc. AF Fixed wing CAS is already closely coordinated with Army folks through the Air Operations Center (AOC) which has an Army element participating in the Integrated Tasking Order (ITO) process. In short (and probably over simplified) a mess of CAS is at the joint land forces component commander's disposal already.

In COIN, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, communications (much space based), and mobility are the AF's big strategic contributions, as well as operating as a 'firebase in the sky'. Given the AF's internal politics (the majority of the general officers being fighter pilots) this doesn't sit well, as it causes people to question the value of the F-22. Ironically, the ISR, Comm, and mobility capabilities provided by the AF are staggering advantages for us in COIN, and make the AF's contribution to current ops absolutely essential to any chance for success, even though their contribution doesn't get the big air play in the media (hence support from elected officials). These poor folks are between a rock and a hard spot trying to balance what Congress is forcing on them, their internal culture, the needs of COIN, and vigilence against future competitors in air power.

I've met GEN Peck but haven't spoken with him much, and I know one of his peers at AU, GEN Miller and have spoken with him a bit. GEN Miller is the smartest fighter pilot I've ever met, and consistently demonstrates a thoughtful long range vision not limited by service parochialisms. I would be very curious how much GEN Peck talked about this article with GEN Miller, as it demonstrates a similar level of thought and consideration to that consistently displayed by GEN Miller. GEN Peck was trying to strike a balance between the ugly realities of small wars and the needs of the Air Force to preserve its capabilities for conventional exercise of airpower. Given the bigger considerations of the AF, I think he did a pretty good job.

I was especially impressed with the penultimate section; "Developing Airmen for Irregular Warfare". For a pilot to emphasize the need for developing people is a bit of a change as they normally focus on their air machines. Stressing the development of leaders and human capabilities in the Air Force is a step in the right direction, and I hope the AF acts on these thoughts.

Not bad for the successors of Army officers like Carl Spaatz and "Hap" Arnold (had to let the Army voice out of its box after talking Joint for so long )