Fallujah and Ramadi were hardly the kind of places I had in mind. Baghdad, yes. It's possible I underestimated how much of a role clans still play there, which is the only 'error' I can find that isn't just a different interpretation.

... so? If you're just trying to point out that calling Arabic a single language is debatable, and to some extent a politically motivated fiction, or that the notion of pan-Arabism hasn't been all that successful politically, I'd agree with both of those. But the term 'Arab world', by analogy with other 'worlds' that are often discussed, doesn't imply more than a shared dominant culture and/or language group, which is obviously accurate. It might be a different story if we talked about a term implying a greater degree of unity, like 'Pan-Arabia' or something. On the demographics, see below.

And as for the old civilizations you mention - some of their cultures survive in a way through minority groups in the 'Arab world', but today, whatever the genetic numbers say, in terms of identity, culture, language, religion, the Berbers are the only ones who even come close to having the numbers to contest the Arabic cultural and linguistic dominance over their respective countries.

Sure, the relative numbers of the conquerors and the conquered are very different. Which is no doubt very important when you're talking about genetics, but I believe we were talking about topics relating to national feeling, to language, to identity. Those aren't necessarily linked much to genetics; a comparatively small group of conquerors can impose its language and culture and identity on a much larger genetically different conquered group, if given enough time, with the final result looking pretty much the same as if it had been a huge number of conquerors imposing themselves.