Military is superior to liberal democracy???

It is said that developing countries generally lack effective bureaucracies which deliver public services to citizens. Building capacity of public servants is one of the most popular interventions under current development assistance. It is, however, not surprising that those interventions usually take time to find any tangible outcome.
One of the lectures presented us a question. Does a military government have advantages compared to liberal democracy?
The advantages are as follows:

1. Because military recruits its constituents (soldiers) from all over the country, it will help avoid regional separation or conflict;
2. Because military administers its constituents hierarchically, effectively functioning organisational structure could be easily established, and it will also help establish stable and coherent flows of commands and orders; and
3. Since military is usually keen to costs for its operation, and clear about objectives for its survival, developmental programmes are likely to be formulated.

Furthermore, all those advantages could become foundation for establishing liberal democratic government efficiently.

According to the lecture, history seems to prove that that is true (even for the case of Japan).
However, to me, this explanation seems to successfully be constructed by seeing the trajectories from the present time. It does not seem to be justifiable that, for expample, the USA supported several military governments of developing world aiming at establishing more liberal administration in the future.

Nevertheless, considering somewhat stagnated processes of institutional building in developing countries, the question seems to caution us against dangers with easily being inclined to a single mode of thought, in this case liberal democracy.