Why Arabs Lose Wars - this extremely true essay is still causing seethe decades later

No it's terrible. Many times in history, foreign observers have attributed military results to culture, only to have to eat their words a short while later. Some examples:

Why, then, are Arab armies so frequently misaligned? For the same reason that virtually all post-colonial armies are: they weren't built to operate alone. The Iraqi army got its start as a security force for RAF bases in the country. No colonizer wants its dependencies to have independent military capability - the colonial force must always need support from the homeland to operate. After independence, countless post-colonial states entered into wars thinking they could do alone what they previously could only do with British or French support. It's no surprise that whenever a post-colonial state enters a war with its former colonizer - as was the case with the Chadian-French alliance in the 1980s - the local forces do just fine. They do what they're good at and leave the rest to the foreigners.

Why haven't Arab forces fixed these deficiencies after all these years? To some extent they have, but they have a long way to go because collective, codified experience (really all 'doctrine' is) takes time to refine. Modern war is not simple and can't be distilled down to a few principles. It took China a century and Japan half a century to build first rate forces. If it took independent countries that long, why should it be any shorter for armies who were once restricted to auxiliary roles?