Tumbleweed

I have to disagree and I think that the Iranian people would also have a problem with this statement. And Russia (And the US experience in Vietnam supports this as well) has been shown twice in the last 2 decades that a 'minor' country/military power can humble the vaunted Russian military on the field. Air defenses on the tactical field are a lot cheaper to build and maintain than strategic defenses. Granted, however, parking an armored regiment in entrenched positions without sufficient air cover facing overwhelming force is a bad tactic. But don't discount other countries militaries simply because they use sub-1990's technology or are handled inappropriately by micro-managing politicians. Just because the US has put a premium on keeping it's soldiers alive on the filed of battle doesn't mean that other approaches aren't just as effective. We use stealth and advanced munitions to compensate for putting less grunts in harms way. Using professionalism, training, sound tactics, innovation, and solid equipment an army using purely conventional (in the present context of the word) arms would be a tough opponent. As with all military innovations, only time will tell us which approach will prove more effective and until the US military faces a competent non-stealth, non-advanced armament force we simply won't know.