It's a bit simplistic to pitch this issue as pacifists vs the military class. Whatever the state decides to do with the military class (if we really have one) remains a political decision for which civilian politicians are responsible. The alternative is a government run by generals (or colonels, depending on where) and I don't think you want to live in one of those régimes. But you're right, it's silly to despise the warrior tradition: just remember that the civilians call the shots in the end. As for the present awful situation, I think the main advantage is that our army is keeping abreast of the Usanian order of battle and military technology - indispensable knowledge for a small country living next to a hulking giant. (Vide Finland 1939-40.)
Absolutely a civilian government is preferable in a developed country. Then again take a country like Turkey, where the military has historically served as a force protecting secularism from Islamic extremism, a sort of midwife to democracy. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I don't think immediate democracy is a one-size fits all solution for every country. Lest we forget the electoral plurality Hitler achieved. Interesting point on the last however, an angle I hadn't considered. Obviously not a rationale that would sell well to the public, but has a definite realpolitik validity.
I think its high time for you to read Ponerology
But thats just me 
"Then again take a country like Turkey, where the military has historically served as a force protecting secularism from Islamic extremism, a sort of midwife to democracy."
Typing this from a DND computer... irony? 
I believe the military, or rather A MILITARY (not THE military of any specific nation) has the responsibility of protecting it's host country and people from: extremism (foreign or otherwise), corruption, as well as from weak 'politicians' with foreign industrial ties etc. Just my two Kabuli Rupees.
Commenting by HaloScan
