Respectfully, I would submit the AH-64 as the best machine ever made to kill tanks, but I am slightly biased.
Just to play devil's advocate from the below coord perspective: if there are SF - type ground forces (limited organic firepower) setting conditions for a full scale near-peer conflict, I think we as a military need to be prepared to support them with some kind of fires. The same can be said for defending ground Brigades (4th ID and 3rd ID have Mission Command in the Baltics, but those forces are largely NATO troops - the author missed the mark on this point and could stand to research a little deeper). If the Air Force gets rid of the CAS platforms, Army Aviation can pick up some of the slack, but we do not have the legs to support as deep as I would expect our advance forces to be (note - we can still get farther artillery). The author also bases his position on what appear to be current tactics. You couldn't do what we do now in Afghanistan (I haven't worked in the Middle East, so I can't speak to that) because of the sophisticated air defense systems in a near peer fight, but that does not mean it can't be done. CAS platforms would have to spend very little time in the target area, have more detailed integration into the ground scheme of maneuver, and probably some EW support. I know on the AH side we can land in a holding area and wait for the situation to develop, but I'm not sure what that means for FW CAS. Anyway, my 2 cents, we like CAS. It's a very effective means of tipping the balance of a fight when the ground force does not have the advantage of numbers.