In the economist we can read that Kagame still holds the same view he has held since 15 years on what should be the solution for Congo:
"Mr Kagame is plainly fed up with the Congolese. He wants Congo’s president, Joseph Kabila, to distance himself from Hutu militias, including remnants of Rwanda’s previous regime of Juvenal Habyarimana, and to rein in his own troops. Mr Kagame denies that a renegade Tutsi general, Laurent Nkunda, whose militias terrorise much of Kivu, has been armed by fellow Tutsis from Rwanda. If the situation in eastern Congo gets much worse, Rwanda, with its relatively strong army and aggressive security service, may be tempted to intervene directly yet again. But if Rwanda is to prosper as a regional trading hub, it must avoid any more cross-border wars."
we know that Paul Kagame's view is wrong, since the start of the war in Congo, 4 million people have died. It would be interesting to see what Monuc's view is compared to Kagame. It would also be interesting to see what africom and www.smallwars.com propose come solution. And then compare the different views. Once we know what the different theories on this subject are, we can more clearly understand what is happening exactedly at this moment in Eastern Congo. I have read that one important American military who regularly writes on www.smallwars.com shared Kagame's ideas on invading the Congo some years ago. It would be interesting to know if the US administration (africom), still holds that position.