Let me start by saying that contrary to the appearance on this thread, I'm not an AF basher.
Well, I could tell that almost right away! The AF bashers tend not to be shy and make their views apparent rather quickly!

IMO, can be traced to excessive emphasis on protecting the institution by the folks at the top; parochial protection to the extent of damaging each other.
No disagreement there. I would go further and suggest the AF is probably the worst, or at least the most defensive. I think this guy gets it about right.

I meant control as in 'own.' I don't object to control as in operational control; that makes sense. I do object to parochial attempts by any service to claim sole ownership of a technology or type of weapon. I routinely fault all four services here and elsewhere for undue parochialism and turf protection; the Army and Marines are as bad as the other two.
By "own" I'll assume you mean who gets to spend the O&M money and what uniforms the operators wear. As I alluded to upthread, that's one form of control, but development and procurement is another form. So while I might be convinced the Army needs it's own fixed-wing CAS aircraft, I also think the AF will need a significant say in the development of said aircraft and should probably be the program manager. Why? Well, first one has to ensure interoperability because no weapons system is an island. Secondly, the Army (and the Marines, for that matter) don't have much experience in FW aircraft development. One would not expect the Air Force, for example, to have much success in managing the development of an armored vehicle or air defense missile and the same is true in reverse with aircraft.

There are other options as well. For example, Air Force CSAR aircraft (and their crews) have been given to the CFLCC as medevac birds. While these units are Air Force in every way, they are completely outside the control of the CFACC. The CFACC still has its own CSAR aircraft on alert and has and does allow them to be used for medevac missions if the CFLCC needs additional assistance. The system works really well, actually, because the CSAR aircraft have a lot more capability than the medevac aircraft which provides the CFLCC with better medevac overall. The downside, of course, is that USAF CSAR assets are being used much more than originally intended, but that is the case with almost everything in the military these days.

So I see no reason why arrangements cannot be made to place certain capabilities directly under the Commander who needs them regardless of which service "owns" the assets.

Another example is special operations which is it's own co-equal component next to the CFLCC, CFNCC, and CFACC. While they get priority for their missions on the use of AC-130's for example (which is an AFSOC asset), AC-130's actually spend most of their time supporting the regular forces with CAS.

All true, all sensible to a great extent and all bearable. My only point on the topic is the 'once tasked' portion; I've seen too many cases of non-release 'just in case.' My son tells me this is rarely a problem nowadays and that's good.
Your son's experience is pretty much what I remember from a couple of years ago. IIRC, when retasking took place it was only when the ASOC asked for it.

I totally agree. As of now. We both know that five years ago that was not the case, ten years ago the AF was trying to shed A-10s and ignore the mission. My fear is that post Iraq it will again fall off the screen. Perhaps not; we'll see.
That is certainly the big fear and one that I share.

There's also the matter of assigning priorities; some people get automatic priority simply because of who they are, not what's needed. Some missions get priorities on the whim of the requestor who just happens to have -- or be accorded -- priority....Once again, you seem to have far more faith in the upper echelons (Purple, that...) to do the right thing than I do.
Maybe so, but in my experience the senior purple leadership has done pretty well. Obviously leadership plays an important role here and who is picked as the JFC is critically important.

On priorities, how assets are divided will always be a source of contention since everyone's priority list is different. Your point about people getting priority because of who they are and not what's needed might be a perceptual one. However, it also works both ways. Assets held at upper echelons and prioritized there indeed may not be divided as they should - but pushing the assets down echelon creates problems of its own and can also result in people getting assets because of who they are, not what they need.

Let's look at a hypothetical. Suppose the theater commander has 20 predators available. He could take everyone's priority list, put them together and divide up the assets. Or he could parcel them out, giving the land component 14, and each of the other components 2 and let them fill their individual priorities. ISTM there are advantage and disadvantages to either method depending on the situation.

Then figure how well it will work out in a major and fluid conventional war...
True dat!