I was referring to this particular battle, not the entire campaign....tho to be sure, the entire campaign did have it's problems and issues....not the least of which was the reason it was undertaken in the first place.
But that's history for ya!!
Custer essentially used the same tactics at LBH as he used at the Washita 8 years earlier. An attack by a divided command on an Indian village that had not been scouted previously. At the Washita it worked (although he came close to possible defeat there as well...). At the LBH, it didn't. At the LBH, the Indian camps were far more concentrated with the population much more numerous, the terrain was considerably different and didn't lend itself to a defensive role, and Custer was ill served by his most senior officers.
But, that doesn't take away from his own culpability in the affair. As I stated, there's blame to go around just about anywhere one looks. That's true of the battle itself, as well as all the other forces at play.