Re: so yeah, what happens now?
You'd have to take a look at Kim's ideology, which is far different - even though both Iran and N-K hate the US. Saddam was supporting the Palestinians, but hated Bin Laden for example. I haven't seen Chavez or Castro allying with N-K in public either, even though they have communist/socialist systems.
@Sean: Darfur could be done, but one of the rules of engagement when it comes to intervention/peacekeeping is that the country must agree with a force being sent: superlame IMO, but Sudan is strictly opposed to non-African troops, if any at all. So the UN is now trying to [I]convince[/I] Al-Bashir to let them in.
Somalia...either full force or stay out. The warlords have proven to be a weak ally, which was to expected from a bunch of coward opportunists - in fact I cannot believe the West has relied on them to stop a bunch of overzealous reli-freaks. For Ethiopia there's plenty of hope if only the dispute about those tiny pieces of land could be settled, around which most of the war with Eritrea has revolved. Sudan however is also involved in destabilizing both countries and arming local militias. The adverse is also the case.
N-K: top priority...Kim is crossing the line of scare tactics right now, and I am strongly opposed to a nutjob running loose with a nuke.
African militias? Hm....that won't work if done in the traditional way. Economic development, eradication of poverty, fairness in politics: those are a few ingredients which will take away the [I]need[/I] for people to take up an armed struggle to claim their piece of the national cake, an it would create strong states which cannot be challenged by armed groups - you see, in Africa the state isn't strong enough to put a claim on violence and is simply one of the competitors for power in a country, unlike in the rest of the world (save maybe parts of South-America).