The Air Force should be disbanded.

While I admire that your argument is based off of funding, I think your criticism of the Air Force come from ignorance as to what the tens of billions of dollars pays for. To start with, I had dinner with a Colonel Otero in the fall of 2006. Colonel Otero, a member of the Air Force, graduate of Iowa State University's ROTC program, and student of the Air War College, was the commander of the Special Forces under Tommy Franks in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Forces is made up of all kinds of personnel, and many of them come from the air force. Given the nature of many Special Forces, or black op missions, much of the funding for them comes from the air force as they often find themselves supplying air cover, air transportation, and supply while also supporting in a recon capacity. When we went into Afghanistan, the entire United States Armed forces had exactly two unmanned aerial vehicles. The Air Force, in part because of the recognized value of a UAV, and in part because an overall strategic understanding provided by leadership which must be concerned by both logistics and a complete strategic understanding of the entire theater, the Air Force was the only service interested in developing the UAV. To date, every UAV produced is funded by the Air Force, and operated by the Air Force, yet serves every trooper that is on the ground, whether they are soldiers, marines, sailors or airmen. Our Military's mission is not solely counter terrorism. And to reduce our military to that capacity would be a huge mistake, especially when just about every mission carried out by the military has little or nothing to do with "counter terrorism", but I suppose since people have consented to call this the "war on terror", its easy to believe that every mission is counter terrorism. According to your profile, you support a "war with Iran", however seldom do people define what they mean by war. In every plan for Iran, the Air Force represents a tremendously important role. Especially given the fact that those plans rely on air sport, and pulling off at least a couple thousand sorties in the first three days. Many of which will have to be conducted by heavy bombs which other branches do not maintain. For the record, though, the United States Air Force has many individuals on the ground in Iraq serving in both advance supply capacities, and direct support capacities. The entire armed forces has been so thinly stressed by this war, and the fact that the number of active duty divisions was reduced by George Bush in the early days of his presidency, that every branch is contributing beyond their original mission statements in an effort to try to make up for the short comings of poor planning by the executive branch. The command of the Iraq Theater actually belongs to a Navy Admiral, and there has been a spirit of cooperation from all the military branches, which the commander of the United States Army who is new to the theater keeps attempting to ignore, which is partially why said Admiral referred to him as a Kiss A$$. http://ipsnews.net... While the Marine Corps might have their own wing of fighters, I can promise you that when the Navy talks about how many fighters that they have, they're including the numbers of Marine fighters. The Marine Corps receives a majority of its funding from the Department of the Navy, and not from a specific congressional allocation. The Marine Corps and Navy also do not invest in heavy bombing capacities, nor do they invest in the military's space program. Yes, the Military has a space program that is almost completely funded by the United States Air Force. The Air Force must be prepared for missions that the United States Army and Navy are not. Also, a majority of the Army's aircraft are support vehicles, and it is a fallacious statement to claim that they have more "Planes", when the United States Army speaks of their total numbers of air craft, they are including non-fixed wing vehicles, such as helicopters. The navy also operates a large share of helicopters that the United States Air Force usually has nothing to do with. So, part of the discrepancy you see is because the Air Force has much fewer stealth fighters and stealth bombers because their mission statement requires it, and the Air Force needs fewer stealth fighters than the Army and Navy needs helicopters to maintain their operations. The Air Force has also provided a brunt of the research behind both the F-22, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35 representing the future air craft of all branches, even the ones who did not share the expense of the design. If you want to promise success in our theaters of operation, fund the air force.