As you show, there is always military involvement in the development of national strategies -- but in the end, our system says the civilian politicians get the final say on what is to be done. Just as in my house, another being always gets the final say on what is to be done.

I can live with both those things, no matter how inefficient -- the benefits are worth it...

Re: your post, I'd like to reemphaisze three parts:
It is published as the National Security Strategy of the US supposedly annually according to the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Because it is unclassified, it is inherently a partisan political document - some more so, some less.
plus
What usually gets short shrift is the necessary focus on resources.
and
Bottom line is that strategy seems easy but it really is hard.
and emphasize the 'inherent' in the political document statement -- adding that even the classified variants will always be political to an extent because politicians must be involved and the politics will usually control the resources. That contributes to the important point that the 'resources' element is usually neglected (and that's very much why doctrine often gets involved to an excessive degree in the production of strategies; military capabilities [NOT desires...] are often a significant element of those resources). Add the fact that predictions or presumptions are of necessity included and strategy is indeed hard. Quite hard.

Developing strategy is difficult due to those factors -- as well as the fact that we all like things to be settled and completed --and dislike change. "This is our strategy" can become target fixation but strategy can never be completed. Nor can doctrine. Both must constantly evolve.