Third World Commanders-in-Chief don't count?

The Washington Post has an article about President (and General) Musharraf's refusal to step down as chief of staff of the Pakistani Army. Musharraf had promised a return to a more democratic form of government where he would trade-in his fatigues for constitutional changes required to legitimize his presidency. He has apparently reneged on this promise. Without casting aspersions on his chosen form of leadership, it occurred to me that the US has exactly this form of government. We have a civilian president that is elected (more-or-less) by the electorate, and is the absolute Command-in-Chief of the military structure. As a recent Justice department memo said, the President has absolute authority to wage war (that is their interpretation). What I find fascinating, is that there would be a question about Musharraf being a third-world dictator when he is actually using a play straight from Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution. I do realize that the main difference is while Pakistan's leader came to power in a bloodless coup, the US President came to power in a bloodless Supreme court coup (We are still in the first term :) ) -- Let the flames begin!