I am in total agreement with you on all of them. I think the confusion lies in the corporate world where, in my experience, strategy documents very often are mere tactical documents with the wrong title.

The Comms Strategy should, in my view, outline where the comms are to be focused in the coming year, in support of the company strategy.

It should not contain tactical terminology; that is not its job or its raison d’etre.

A separate document, the tactical plan, should outline both the objectives and the tactics to be deployed, and is should be of interest only to the mid-level comms and other managers.

Much as a high-ranking general trusts his or her subordinates to achieve the goals, so the Strategy Doc should trust the documents below it to actually achieve the goals, by whatever means at their disposal in line with ethics, cost and capability.

The confusion reigns when we assume that a plan equals a straitjacket — as Shel’s mention demonstrates. A good strategic plan takes change into account, and focuses more on why we do what we do than how, just as you and Shel intimate. But though all strategy is useless once you step on the battlefield (paraphrased from US General Eisenhower), it has already served its purpose by that time — to focus your attention on outcomes.