Other costs of the War being ignored

I just replied to another topic along this line, and I thought I would put it in as a new topic. I was wondering if this could be a way to convince people who generally agree with RP, but disagree with his anti-war stance. Even people that think the war is actually hurting terrorists, it has a big cost to other defense programs.

While I am not trying to start another cold war, remember that Russia has recently started flying strategic bomber missions all over the world and has been developing light tactical battlefield nukes, while China has been developing anti-satellite missiles. Meanwhile, I have seen reports that we have reduced research in various advanced defense programs mostly because of the cost of day to day operations in Iraq.

Furthermore, as I recall we just grounded our fleet of older F15A to F15D fighters which is our nations primary air superiority fighter for home defense because of structural fatigue failures on these aircraft built in the 1970's that were never meant to be used for so long. (the newer F15E units used overseas are a few years newer and stronger) It is expected that it could be months before most of them are back in the air. In other words our nation's primary air superiority aircraft for home defense is grounded.

Meanwhile, the Air Force wants 200 new units of the awesome F22 that costs about 132 million each, and they are not funded at this time. If memory serves, I once read that we spend about 11 million dollars per hour for operations in Iraq. Doing the math, the cost of operations in Iraq is about 2 units per day, so in theory if we stopped that expense, we could completely fund the Air Force's desired air superiority fleet by early April with what we are spending in Iraq. Now granted, if we pulled immediately out of Iraq, all that money would not be available for defense, but some of it could.

Don't you think that this kind of point could be good to make to those opposed to RP's anti-war stance?