The key words I've noticed in that article were "leadership" the author definetly takes aim at the political leadership of Arab countries. Which is something I support. Arab leaders are awful and with some very bright exceptions, always have been, and it seems (if the article is taken as true which it shall be) that this has been passed downhill and the officers of the Arab armies emulate said trait.
The author also appears to be using Arab as a political and cultural term, not a racial term, so I assume he uses "Arab" for lack of a better descriptor.
But I think there are some things which we can take from the article and use to support my argument. Most notably is the story of the Egyptians marching a parade of soldiers to block the sand from hitting the other soldiers.
A small example I know, but it is a fine example of just what you can do with a well motivated group of Arabs. Now if we were to put this kind of dedication of the NCO towards another task, imagine the results. Officers aside, my statement doesn't need much refinement.
My statement was that you would train them on "modern training, tactics and equipment" the authors argument is based on current systems of training in predominately Arab countries, which are quite obviously antiquated.
So I would like to refine my statement somewhat, with a proper introduction into Modern Tactics, training (Which presumably encourages free thought and outside the box thinking) you could raise a very successful modern Arab regiment, largely due to their intense loyalty and passion if rightly motivated.
This is unlikely to happen however and the authors sentiments will ring true for a long time to come:
Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that the Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political, warfare
Which is true, if you can motivate them into small groups(presumably for your own cause) they will fight a successful insurgency. The only one I can think off the top of my head which is a good example is the Arab revolt against the Ottomans. What was notable about that was A)Once they had defeated the Ottomans, and a modern parliamentary style of system was thrust upon them, it was entirely incompatible with the extremely diverse Arab culture (an argument which is still true today) as a result the infighting led to colonisation and B)It is a good example of what properly (by your definition) motivated Arab warriors can do against a larger force.
Kind of lost it there sorry.
This whole argument I'm making actually disgusts me because it's turning Arabs into tools to defeat our enemies, which is...conflicting for obvious reasons.