I think to most in the AF the statement that "Ground power's unique characteristics necessitate that it be centrally controlled by soldiers" is perfectly reasonable and so obvious that it needs no elucidation.
Entropy, I'm not buying it. I do not believe that the AF folks who populate ACC and the AOCs would tolerate the arrogant tone of the statement, and I tried it out on an AF officer last night, and was dismissed out of hand. After ten minutes of discussion, it was allowed that perhaps the ground fight, especially in urban environments is as complex as the aerospace fight. And it was the arrogance of the tone of the assertion rather than the content that was the issue.

And where is the line? More than half of the time, airpower will eventually end up under a non-pilot at some echelon. So all air combat operations should be controlled by ACC at Langley AFB, or can the AF live with the soldier commanding MNC-I controlling a slice of air power?

I understand the need for a central ATO, I understand but loathe the reasons behind the limits on the timeliness and flexibility of the ATO process, but this all goes back to underlying issues of culture versus doctrine (and I am well aware of many of the flaws in Army culture and doctrine - most seem to go back to the inherent [and somewhat justifiable] conservatism of ground troops).