Roughly, I would say that those points are "largely" lessons learned from Iraq. I don't have much against these points, other than Africa is a different situation. First point:

"Forceful, armed intervention that shoots first rather than last, at least until order is restored, TV cameras and public image abroad be damned. [Extreme care in all use of force and refusal to fire first, even in the face of danger or extreme provocation - many U.N. blue berets come back with stories of having to watch rapes, kidnappings, murders, etc. and not intervene.]"
Generally the attitude is right. But you *really* can't have "TV cameras and public image abroad be damned". It's like saying gravity be damned.
It's a serious "force" which MUST be dealt with.
Instead let's look at the "mistakes" of Gulf war II. The BIG mistake is the coalition do not having a large well train and effective Arab speaking army.
If the US force was instead Arabic, we would have a much easier time- the soldiers could talk to citizens, and generally citizens would be more accepting of the invading force. Having troops that are fluent in a language and have knowledge of a culture is more important, than the citizen's bias and prejudices towards the invading force [as some Iraqis have said "we just want order"].
Now, this points to a solution, we need a strong and effective army in Africa which is African. So, the USA should try to get existing stable democracies to build a miltary which has this capablity- A NATO in Africa, or NATO in Africa. South Africa seems like one good choice for this. If South Africa is unwilling or unable to afford a better army then we should do things which would encourage this country to do this- being a NATO member could be one carrot to start with.