I think you're looking at this too pessimistically.
I am being pessimistic, certainly.
While there was a reasonable amount of simulation snobbery of C&S, RM etc players against D&D, I think it was also healthy that there were flourishing systems and fanbases to support a variety of playsytles. I certainly read a lot of posts from self-describes "sim" D&D players (mostly 3E) on these boards and wonder why they aren't playing one of those other systems
Honestly, I think that's part of the problem. There are a lot of good reasons to play a system that doesn't 'support' your style in the sense typically used today (and that sense is 'over-reward' or 'penalize other styles' or something), and D&D is beneficiary of a number of them because it is so widely-known.
Personally, one of the things I really liked about 3e was the way the rules worked as a fairly consistent set of 'laws of physics' for the world. The way PCs and Monsters could take levels in classes, for instance. It /could/ have gone even further in that direction (and could have been a /lot/ better-balanced while doing it), but there was a lot of fun to be had with it to the degree that it did. Conversely, one of the things I really liked about 4e was the way it /didn't/ do that nearly as much, and instead had rules that were fairly consistent in emulating genre conventions. I haven't found a corresponding virtue in 5e's ruleset, but then I haven't gotten to see the whole thing yet.
But I've played RQ, and I've played a lot of RM. Pulsipher's characterisation of those systems, and also his comment that D&D can't deliver that, fits accurately with my experiences. And I know from experience that those systems can be fun!
In the 80s I didn't get to play RQII as much as I'd've liked, but I did enjoy it. I also enjoyed D&D. The systems are extremely different - RQ was arguably significantly better in the technical sense at the time -but they were still each playable in a broad range of styles.
I guess my question is, in what sense is this sort of play really giving you wargaming or realism-sim? If the GM manipulates action resolution to produce the plot-appropriate outcomes, where is the wargaming? And how is the game being run as a sim?
I suppose you'd have to accept some fuzziness and matters-of-degree around 'wargaming' and 'sim' to see how they'd be compatible with the GM fudging things in favor of plot. One way that was used a lot in D&D, though, was simply not letting the players know it was happening - something for which the DM screen is handy.
It's also possible for the campaign to play to one predilection more than the others at time, over its course. So you could have a campaign that includes a few genuine battles that are played out with the dice falling where they may and tactical acumen provided by the player(s) of the character(s) leading troops being critical, a few set-piece battles, some puzzles, traps, moral quandaries, and logistical issues to sort out in detail, some personal interactions, and yet still a broad story arch and dramatically appropriate climax and denouement. That's not a matter of choreographing some almost-impossibly-precise and complex paragon of gamesmanship, either - it can grow quite organically from the players (including DM) each pursuing their enjoyment of the game while allowing others the same privilege. It's when the predilections rise to the levels of prejudice, and letting another player enjoy the game in a different way becomes intolerable that you have the weird sort of acrimony we saw in the edition war, and mere preferences held up as incompatible 'styles' that must be segregated from eachother.
That is, I thought that was a recent phenomenon, but the OP quoted article gives an example of someone going there way back in the early years of the hobby.