It seems to me that he's trying to argue a positive hypothesis when his evidence just points to a negative one. He's really saying, "get the strategy wrong and

It seems to me that he's trying to argue a positive hypothesis when his evidence just points to a negative one. He's really saying, "get the strategy wrong and execution is impossible." But basic logic will tell you that's not the same thing as what he's claiming. It's also a lot less controversial and less likely to drive clicks, so perhaps that's the reason he tried to overreach in his conclusion.