Every time a significant player in any game makes decisions despite contrary expectations, you can bet he employed a certain level of secrecy and decoy beforehand. As a result, ‘mystery’ is created, even though the opposing forces had that scenario already calculated in their books. Theoretically, there was adequate preparation for it, but it was considered unlikely to occur.
The attacker in this game model (he would not focus on decoy, secrecy, and mystery if playing defense the whole time) will have two main plays to choose from: Full attack early on, surprising everyone, redrawing the map, or strategically setting new rules brick by brick, adhering to some of the opponent’s principles while he completely disregards others.
Historically, the first strategy characterized men of ambition, disillusionment, and mental instability. The latter characterized “statesmen” or generals of stature, intellect, and utter practicality.
Perhaps not anymore?
Times do change, and so can leadership models. In such moments of infectiously rapid developments and minor fluctuations of magnitude, models (can) get reversed. But before you attempt to offer an explanation or predict a possible outcome in such a gaming model, one should wonder: who is noticing?
Is it entities responsible, capable, and willing to address such issues?
One would expect precisely that. Perhaps not anymore? Times do change, and so do management models (again).
The question is whether certain elemental principles of individual and collective behavior can be traced throughout history and cannot be ignored or avoided even today.
I am sure there must be some.