Do military generals do everything?

Factual Questions
1

From time to time, I’ve seen it said that a to-level general, in the US military is really more of an administrator, coalition-builder, and negotiator than anything else. And, realistically, that probably makes sense. Winning wars probably has more to do with keeping everything running and having the right tools and training available to the troops than it does to being a brilliant strategist or fighter.

But presumably there is a value to the military for good strategy and tactics, potentially to the level that I could almost view there as being value to having a separate set of generals who maybe aren’t such good people managers or logisticians, but who can tell you how best to win given certain constraints and what would best help you to win if the resources were available. While I’m pretty sure that doesn’t exist, is there any sort of position that is dedicated to strategy and high enough ranking that their ideas can’t simply be ignored? Or does everything really come down on the strategic ability of the generals?

2

Generals who aren’t good people managers aren’t good generals; they can’t actually function in command positions, so won’t ever get there. In the US, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sort of hold that position, they’re not purely operational but they don’t run day-to-day commands and have advising the rest of the government as their primary job. This article gives a good breakdown of how modern military staffs generally parcel out duties, it’s more complicated than you’d think at first, and generals actually do a lot of delegating: Staff (military) - Wikipedia