Military strategy is the job of those with relevant experience.
not anymore
Not really. Ultimately it is up to the Commander in Chief to set the objective(s). It is up to the military (and the diplomats, too) to propose paths to the CinC's objective. The CinC may have to put constraints on the proposed path, but once he accepts the path (modified or not), he owns it.
Example. During Gulf War I, it was an important part of US strategy to get the Arab countries to back the US. To do that, it was essential to keep Israel OUT OF THE WAR. To do that, US forces had to go SCUD-hunting even though they didn't want to because the SCUDs were not tactically significant, and were doing little damage to Israel. Had the generals gotten their way about the SCUDs, Israel would have entered the war and the Arabs would have backed out and maybe even switched sides. Purely military considerations sometimes have to be adjusted because of a larger strategy.