First of the M-16A2 is a precision made weapon that needs constant babying - aka CLEANING - and that ain't gonna happen. Like the article says, you can bury an AK in the sand for 100 years, dig it up, and it will fire (just like we found in the climes on Vietnam). Try that with any M-16.
Secondly, contrary to the article the M-16 was not designed to 'kill', aimed 3 round burst or not. the theory behind that little bullet was it was designed to injure, and as such take 3 bad-guys out of a battle (2 to care for the wounded). The AK's 7.62x39 is far superior for 'killing' up to 200 yards. And for longer distances neither are ideal in battle. Then there's the ammo. The 7.62x39 is prolly the most available round in the world thanks to the USSR, China, etc.
Oh, and there's a reason the M-16A2 only fires a three round burst, compared to the old 'full auto' A1 used in Vietnam. The US Military is cheap, historically cheap. After Vietnam the bean counters went to work and found it took 25,000 M-16A1 rounds per VC/NVA kill. And we can't have that it's a 'waste of money', so the A2 came out with the 3 round burst. So let them keep the AK, or if ammo cost is again rearing its ugly head, give them SKS's. There's plenty available and the ammo is the same.
As to the 'historically cheap' part - that goes back to the Civil war and US Military choice of the single shot Springfield over the Henry 'repeater' (waste of bullets and money). And that 'logic' continued through the Indian Wars. If Custer's 7th had Winchesters at the Little Big Horn - which many of the 'injuns' did, it wouldn't have been his 'last stand'. (yeah one Gatling would have done it too but that's another matter)
The M-16 just sucks, in any version. It was designed for a war that never came.
(just my $.02)
What kind of war was it designed for?