Oh guys, why do you beat Meyer so much? Did he assault anyone of you? Let's stick to the text itself, please. Neither biography nor person are interesting, just the idea itself. A man should be rated for his ideas, not his ideas be rated for the man. (I hope I got that translated to something that'll be understood...)

I disagree on the accuracy problem as mentioned by Tom Odom. It's at least not that large.
Technical equipment with GPS navigation is able to land a bomb as accurate as is demanded in the paper for parachutists.
Similar technology has proven 100 ft CEPs many years ago.
So unless somebody is really involved in those developments and can tell us about the accuracy achieved at present and about the one expected for the near future, we should not rule out the possibility of precision landings.

But that's a minor point of the article anyway.

I agree with him that a division-sized air assault is unlikely, and a brigade-sized air assault in unsecured terrain is unlikely as well for the next couple of years.
This has some relevant implications, as for example no specialist airborne artillery is necessary - heavier standard equipment instead of white elephants like M777 could be used for the more conventional ground combat missions.