What a dilemma.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was assigned to England AFB in 1981 and helped transition from A-7s to A-10s. I have the utmost respect for the A-10, its capabilities, and it's pilots. I've flown simulators and can personally vouch for the fact that it's a lot easier to do close air at 180 knots than it is at 350 knots IAS. The A-10 can fly lower, slower, and maneuver better than most other aircraft. The issue isn't whether the A-10 is better at CAS. The issue is, should the AF take money and pilots from other programs to support a single-mission plane? Having a great CAS platform doesn't mean much if you can't maintain air superiority and the planes aren't free to fly where they're needed. The bottom line is that in order to keep 50% of the population on food stamps and supplied with free Obamaphones, you need to cut the military.
The Air Force never really seemed to be particularly interested in getting down in the mud providing close air support.
At least at the higher levels.
The SAC and TAC bomber and fighter people usually held sway and that’s where the money goes.
The wars we are now involved in are pretty much ground and low level air.
But the Air Force wanted to discontinue the most effective ground support aircraft while proceeding with the problematic supersonic F-35 fighters at $100 million a pop.