You guys are being naive about a ground forces ability to inflict hurt upon an airborne force. Certainly, airpower is a force to be reckoned with. However, the question of whether a war can be one without airpower vice whether a war can be one without ground troops are diametrically opposed.
An ultimately powerful ground force with anti-air forces can absolutely win a war. The cost would be high, since the effectiveness of air assets is so absolute vs ground troops. However, conversely, you cannot win a war with air power alone. While this might not hold true in all out nuclear war, even then I would not bet upon air assets only (assuming only aircraft delivered nukes).
War is the penultimate form of political negotiations. And todays precision bombing may destroy the will of the average populace, it cannot remove the will of a fighting force to enable occupation. It may demoralize, neutralize or perhaps even beat into submission an enemy, but to enable the ability to occupy the won territory by non-combatants cannot be accomplished with air power alone. In all cases, ground troops will be required. It is only the comparison of the effectiveness of a single ground troop versus a single airmen that is called into question.