One of the strengths of higher-end military philosophy is that it is a flexible thing. That flexibility allows it to be adapted as needed to specific situations and/or contexts (if it's done correctly...and this isn't always the case). More fixed concepts such as you describe have their uses (I don't view this as an "either/or" proposition...and I think it's actually dangerous to do so), but they do tend to lend themselves to rigid thinking and a lack of flexibility that can lead to unintended consequences.

You also highlighted one of the main points (although I'm not 100% sure it was intentional): wide theories can be espoused without running the risk of damaging one's little empire because they are so hard to implement. Smaller objectives DO often damage one's little empire, hence the resistance.

It's worth remembering that often those wide-ranging theories provide the framework for small, measurable changes. Trouble occurs when one is mistaken for the other. I'm a believer in the need for a wider framework or basis of understanding, because it tends to help focus some of the smaller tasks or goals. Not for everyone, I understand, but it can be helpful.

Testable is a loaded word in and of itself, because of the bias that can be embedded into the testing and validation process itself. I've seen some really half-assed products come out of an improper historical review, and we all know about "objective field tests" that produce exactly what the evaluators want to see.