A nation substantively committed to stability and peace should be final arbiter of any country's military legitimacy

I have been asked by one of my sponsoring groups that brought me back to Washington, DC for my considered opinion about who should have final say when a country's military no longer has the support of its citizenry.  The issue arises because of attempts to establish a new government in Venezuela and by attempts to circumvent the pronouncements of the Sudanese generals on their timetable to hand over the government to civilians.

Now it seems to me that a country whose military budget is humongous in proportion to its overall budget overtime is clearly a candidate to pass judgment on some country's military might on the basis of two criteria: the stability of the government in managing the affairs of government, and the peace and tranquility its establishes and promotes across the world.  The one nation that clearly lives by these two criteria in providing for its military is the United States.

And so I believe that the United States military is in position to aid and succor attempts by some country (including its own) to assure the peace and stability in both the handling areas of internal and external governmental control.  It could make policy decisions that would involve alliances such as the African Union to implement its recommendations, e.g., as regarding the Sudanese military and its overall government.  But the point is to establish a paradigm, a model, that might be useful for upgrading the military no longer respected by its people.  In my way of thinking the military is protector not only of its citizenry but of the country's assets, whether publicly or privately owned.  Whenever it loses the public's trust, it must be reorganized. with these two criteria in mind.