So there's a book written on this subject that I haven't read but i know the summary of it. It's called 'Commandante Che' by Paul Dosal. It establishes that the answer is complicated(I would add yes but complicated). Che when it comes to military campaigns Che was a terrible strategist but a brilliant tactician and soldier. During the Cuban Revolution it was Castro's strategic planning that gave them the edge but Che's tactical genius won them the final decisive battle at Santa Clara despite being outnumbered 10 to 1. What happened though was internationally in places like Congo and Bolivia he could not win the campaigns because he would always be at a strategic disadvantage. This despite the fact that he would win the battles anyways. So he found himself in the position America found itself in Vietnam. Winning every battle but being at a massive disadvantage.

Furthermore it also concludes that Che was not w great commander in chief but he was a brilliant field commander. What I get when reading Ches military escapades is that he is the Hannibal of guerilla warfare. A brilliant tactician who's tactics as well as the strategic disadvantage he found himself in ended up being used against him by his enemies.