I've read the article.

1. Clearly Joseph Kabila doesn't depend on these guys for his personal security. He seems to be applying a popular model in the developing World - i.e. lavishly fund an elite unit largely composed of members of your tribe / mercenaries and treat the rest of the army like crap. (I might be wrong here). I find it hard to be believe that while Rwanda can field a modestly competent army, Congo DRC cannot.

He doesn't trust these guys, so he'll pay lip service to anything you tell him to secure his next tranche of aid funding.

2. The problem with Congo DRC is political, not military and Joseph Kabila clearly isn't the man you should be dealing with.

3. No amount of exposure to the US army is going to change the nature of military-civilian relations in the Congo DRC (to put it mildly), unless the underlying, socio-economic and political problems are dealt with. All armies reflect the values and the education levels of their lowest recruits and the leadership qualities of their commanders. The Nigerian army for example, has a well earned reputation for brutality, but it is less likely to sink to the level of the Congolese army because its leadership and rank and file are better educated and better orientated.

4. A nation the size of Western Europe cannot be effectively administered from Kinshasa. It's time to break up the Congo and deal with the constituent parts. The US military intervention merely continues the false notion that Congo DRC is a united, contiguous entity and should be treated as such.

5. On the balance, what the US army is doing is better than doing nothing, but it is not sustainable.