Scott likes the Company Landing Team concept. I don't. Why is he right???

Recently the USMC conducted a heliborne assault deep into Syria.

Awesome right?

Not from my chair.  We just deposited over 100 of America's finest deep into enemy territory and they're faced with a chaotic battlefield.  We have the unreliable and tempermental Turks on one side, the Russians/Syrians/Iranians on the other and a weird medieval terrorist force under the banner of ISIS on the other.

They ALL have heavy armor, heavy artillery and a mixed command/control structure that has given varying results of effectiveness.

Sometimes it's shit hot.  Other times its boy scout jamboree level competence.

Scott told me I'm a muppet for applauding the Russian amphibious entry of forces into the theater while shitting (and I wasn't...I've expressed concern with the CLT concept for years) on the USMC.

I think he's wrong as two left feet but he gives me pause.  My response to him was angry but could I be wrong?

Why would the Marine Corps abandon a WELL DEVELOPED and effective Combined Arms Team to instead focus on shedding much of the limited armor and artillery that we bring to fights in rapid deployment situations by way of the MEU?

Does the SPMAGTF-CC make sense considering what they're facing in the region?  Is it really viable to rely on long range artillery and stacks of airplanes burning circles in the sky for fire support when we have a reinforced company of Marines deep in bad guy land?

From where I sit this is batshit crazy.

But others obviously disagree. 

Tell me where I'm wrong.  Don't emote.  Hit me with facts and tell me where I've gone off the rails with my critique!