If leaders had to prove they understood strategy before making world-altering decisions, how many would actually qualify?

I can’t stop thinking about this. When you look at how world leaders make decisions, it all looks like a game...but with real people, economies, and entire nations at stake. Military conflicts feel like chess matches where everyone is trying to outmaneuver each other. Trade deals are basically giant poker games where the strongest bluffer wins. Economic policies feel like Monopoly except the people making the rules never go bankrupt.

And yet, if you asked these same leaders to prove they’re actually good at strategy, they probably couldn’t. If war is really about strategy, shouldn’t we demand that the people in charge actually demonstrate some level of strategic competence?

Like, if you can’t plan five moves ahead in chess, maybe you shouldn’t be in charge of a military. If you rage quit a game of Catan, should you really be handling international diplomacy? If you lose at Risk every time, maybe don’t annex territory in real life.

Obviously, I’m not saying world leaders should literally play board games instead of governing (though honestly, it might be an improvement). But why do we tolerate leaders who treat real life like a game when they could just be playing a game instead?

I feel like people in power get away with reckless, short-term thinking because they never actually have to deal with the consequences. If they had to prove they understood strategy, risk, and negotiation, maybe we wouldn’t be in this constant cycle of bad decision-making.

Curious what others think??? would this make any difference, or are we just doomed to be ruled by people who can’t even win a game of checkers?