You mean bomb runs along the Suez Canal againsts Egyptian pontoon bridges that were lined by SAMs? The IAF pilots were certainly well trained. Yet those same pilots using vastly different tactics had a different outcome 9 years later. Troop quality is a major factor, don't get me wrong, but tactics is one of the major factor in war.
The IAF pilots had vastly different equipment in the Bakaa Valley against units that the Egyptians had fielded in 1973. The IAF adapted (thanks to the US) and the Syrians didn't. (The Middle East was sold third tier monkey models for all their weapon systems.) For all your claimed "knowledge," I'm surprised you didn't know about the poor quality of export weapons.
The French have superior tanks and quantitative superiority over the Germans in 1940, yet they were the ones who were conquered.
French tanks were defeated both by German tactical superiority and in their ability to fully utilize the comparative advantages of armored units. On the other hand, French tanks were technologically inferior in their command and control capabilities; none of them utilized radios.
If you look at the two key points of World War II, you'll note the key aspect that technology played; the failure of Germany to exploit radar technology resulted in the inability to pacify England and the failure of Japan to properly develop and utilize its carriers similarly resulted in its defeat.
American "superiority" in the half century has been continually maintained by technological superiority and the economic war that resulted in trying to maintain an edge. It was not the B-52 or M1 Abrams that won the cold war but the ability of the US to survive the economic aftermath of an arms race. Nations have limited resources and the economic efficiency of weapon systems is absolutely critical.
The 3 divisions of Iraqi Republican guard manage to reorient itself, under fire, and put in a blocking force in order to protect the left flank of the retreating Iraqi Army. They suffered crippling losses yes, but they were a far cry from being poorly trained and conscripts, and stall the US forces long enough to ensure the escape of main army.
You can take the top 3 divisions of most armies and call them elite but that doesn't change the fact that the exception does not prove the rule. As a whole, Iraqi troops were undertrained conscripts and the Republican Guard was the the elite force. In the same way, you have American mechanized infantry and marine expeditionary units; the latter is obviously better trained and more professional but they're not representative of the American army as a whole.
The reality is that against the coalition forces, the vast majority of the Iraqi army was poorly trained, poorly equipped with third rate monkey models, and lacked the motivation to fight a protracted war against qualitatively and quantitatively superior forces.
And what escape are you even referring to? The Republican Guard was decimated first by airstrikes and the ground combat with coalition forces and the Iraqi army was basically annihilated on the Highway of Death.
Do not put words into my mouth. I said that current arms race between SAM's and Aircraft has tilted to the aircraft. See above post as to where I think the next RMA concerning air defence will be.
You continually note the developments of aircraft in absence of considerations about SAM developments and attempt to portray aircraft as having some significant advantage over SAM systems. The reality is that no major tactical strategy or weapon system will sit around with no counter for the reason I listed above; the greater the advantage, the more resources your enemies will spend to counter it and more often than not, it costs less to react than innovate.
Either way, you blatantly refuse to even acknowledge your flawed analysis, plagiarism, and lack of any real knowledge about warfare or any ability to analyze the implications of those realities.
