I am wrestling with the statement "It is a meaningless distinction to separate strategy and execution ...".  I agree with the futility of separating strategy from execution, but I find I agree with the sound bite - they are distinct.  The strategy defines at various levels of detail what you intend to do; execution is doing it.

In working with the implementation of process standards in Engineering organizations, the key distinctions - and greatest misunderstanding - is among the many levels of decomposition of "strategy".  While slavish attention to a standard (or methodology) can lead to pitched battles over the meaning of policy, strategy, goal, and objective, my take is that they form a continuum from whatever you consider the top (e.g., a corporate goal or strategy) to detailed procedures and plans for specific activities.  What is critical is that each level of "strategy" be appropriate to the level at which it is defined - that it not impose excessive or unnecessary requirements (or restrictions) on the lower levels and that it clearly communicate all the requirements that are intended.

Circling back to the futility of separating strategy and execution, the expressions of the strategy must be in forms that allow adaptation to the realities of the execution.  While the example of lemmings comes to mind, another example is an engineering team that discovered a much better way to achieve a desired end result.  The team did not implement it because changing the defining strategy would have been impossible in the time available - and no-one wanted to do it.  Or did they implement the improvement and just not tell anyone?  I forget.