The Su's aren't using afterburners in the maneuvers because they aren't capable of pulling maneuvers in a radius that small with the power of an afterburner at their back. The fact the F-22 can speaks to its maneuverability. Remember the more power you have the harder it is to make tight maneuvers, not the other way around. This is why aircraft in a dogfight constantly slow as they descend with the aircraft able to maintain the higher speed in its maneuvering envelope often wins.

The first and most important is Influence. America has long wanted influence in that area of the world. Oil and a presence in an area of the world that hates us (and rightfully so) for our meddling in their affairs.
Lets face it we stuck our noses where it didn't belong and it got bloodied. As The Marlboro Man stated previously when the U.S. invades a country we stay there. We set up bases and continue to have a presence. Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. All these places have American bases to this day.
Once Iraq has been "pacified" there will be permanent U.S. bases set up there. The truth of the matter is American soldiers will never "leave" Iraq. The 7th Armored division now has a home in the Middle East. A Home that borders Iran, Syria and Jordan. A new home rich in oil and I have no doubt big Texas oil companies will be setting up to export at peak proficiency at a greatly reduced price to the U.S. people. I'm not saying weather its right, or wrong, just what is, and what is is Influence.
The second point, El Presidentey Bush went and finished dad's work. Hussein made George Bush Sr. look like a moron. Jr. just had the means and the excuses necessary to actually pull it off.

Therefore, there are two primary scenarios to focus on in this debate:

1. Regional conflict with Russian client state using some export variants of the Su-30MK, older examples of Mig 29, 27, 25, etc. with limited support resources and incomplete elements of integrated air defense.

2. Conflict with Russia or major power using Russian weaponry (ex. China).

In the first case the competitiveness of the F-22 is not in question whether it be against Su-37 or PAK FA. The reasons for this go beyond the characteristics of the F-22. The American military forces fight as an integrated whole:
�    Satellite reconnaissance would identify air defense, airbases and other strategic sites.
�    Cruise missiles would hit as many of those as possible leaving large gaps in the air defense net and a scramble to regain situational awareness.
�    Cruise missiles would likely destroy many aircraft on the ground.
�    Scrambling aircraft would likely find the initial air assault wave already on top of them. Those already airborne would be outnumbered and lack guidance to target � even if radars in theatre could detect the F-22 or other stealth craft, most of those will have been destroyed and replacements not available on short notice.
�    End result: Petty dictator deposed, chaos and panic in the enemy ranks, throngs of adoring peasants welcoming Americans as liberators.

1. F-22's AESA Radar was designed and built with rapid frequency exchange rate, even with its radar on in full attack mode locating the aircraft by passively scanning on its radar will still be very difficult.

2. Despite what Russia and China claim, neither has a missile system that has proven capable of striking the US's high air reacon birds, as well as several of the military-specific GPS systems. "But China shot down a sattelite with this"
Yeah I know, but there is a big difference in altitude of orbit between the two systems. Just because you could hit the ISS with a missile doesn't mean you'll hit a bird in orbit well above it.

3. The missile range advantage russians enjoy against American aircraft is severely diminished in facing an F-22. Not only is the new much longer range AIM-120D starting production, but the sheer altitude and supercruise speed factor of the F-22 imparts a much greater lethal distance to any missile fired by the F-22 versus a legacy airframe.

4. SAM Missile defense systems are still going to suffer heavy attrition not only from HARM, and Cruise Missiles, but from deployed Special Forces teams.

5. Not a disagreement but a relevant point, a severe inexperience issue is going to come into effect on the side of Russia. Now don't get me wrong, Russia has a strong professional military but it is a little out of practice so to speak in so far as live fire engagement.

6. The US will not be crippled nearly as bad as people think even if something did happen to the GPS, and here is why. 1 There are plenty of armament systems that are more than capable of the job that don't require GPS. 2. In all MOS's and all branches and at all levels the US armed forces has a healthy supply of one thing, Boy Scouts of America's Eagle Scouts. Every Eagle Scout knows how to orient a map, and they are more plentiful in the service than people think.

7. Russia still lags considerably behind the United States in Electronic Warfare capability. Even in the nightmare scenario you have mentioned this will be a severely limiting factor to the capability of the Russians.

yes, even Russia have some better hardware than any other, they probably don't produced them at large scale, due to lake of money.
Example? T-90 (I think is slightly better than M1A2), S-300MPU1-2-3, SKVAL missiles, Iskander missiles etc. So Russia will loose.