General McChrystal here on RallyPoint - What questions do you have?

Thanks for your kind words - and welcome home. I think, like everyone, I had a lot of adjustments to make. When I left the service in 2010 from Afghanistan, I'd been gone for 5 of the previous 6 years and in the same month my wife and I were reunited and moved to a retirement home, my son finished college - and moved in with his finance - and a cat. I went from being alone in a tiny room in a war zone to a house with 3 other people - and a cat. Simultaneously, I started a new career of teaching, began a company, etc, etc. All that's interesting, but the biggest change came in deciding who I was now that I wasn't a soldier (which I'd been for over 38 years). I had to decide how to think of myself, how to interact with others, and what I wanted to contribute to the world. Most important, I found were long conversations with my wife and friends. I couldn't have done any of that alone.

Thanks for responding, Sir!

My pleasure.

Long conversations with ... a cat?

It sounds to me like you're doing exactly the thing that matters most - care about soldiers and the job they do. I think our nation provides enough money (in most cases) to our military, but the critical resource is always moral support. As you know, it was dangerously weak during Vietnam, but it has been far stronger this time around. We can't let it slip.

Although I have zero interest in running for any office, I would like to see more veterans enter elected politics. We need to leverage many of the skills, values, and experiences I've seen to obvious in the force.
Its hard to say the most memorable book, but I'm reading one now called "The Road to Character" by David Brooks and it really makes you think about what character really is- and what kind of person do we want to be.

GEN Stanley McChrystal: I agree, sir. Thank you. I'm going on Amazon right now :)

Its an important question. While all of us suffered frustrations with what we couldn't do, I came to the conclusion that the Rules of Engagement were not only correct (most of them), but essential to our effort. If we adopted the tactics of the enemy, we become no better than the enemy. In both Iraq and Afghanistan I felt that the only true road to victory lay in securing the support of the population. To do that, we needed to differentiate ourselves from our foe, and operate in a manner than the population could support and admire. At times that demands the hardest task - to display "courageous restraint" at a time when we want to strike, shoot, or bomb. But I believe it was (and is) essential.

GEN Stanley McChrystal - I would agree with what the statement entails however it seems the MACV, Rules of Engagement We had to deal with in Viet Nam caused delays in making decisions that got US service people killed. On a battlefield there isn't a lot of time to think about things and decisions have to made right away and hope its the correct one. We certainly don't want to stoop to the level some of the enemy did and there do have to be some standards which of course the enemy there didn't have to observe. It appears I have the same concerns that Sgt Dumbrow had expressed although I think We still all agree on the need for ROE however the application often ended with results that cost American lives. I have noticed however throughout history We see Military Forces that had no such rules the results were never good.

Although it sounds less dramatic an approach, I'd do a couple of key things:
1 - Create, train, and support a much wider group of regional talent. It would include language training, living in the region (often with their families), and the like so we have a group of people that are truly comfortable and have been able to develop relationships.
2 - I'd work to expand relations and coalitions with nations in the region. We have to work "through and with" threatened nations - we can't swoop in as outsiders and be even close to successful in the long run.

GEN Stanley McChrystal
Was it a mistake to move out of Iraq as quickly as we did??
Do you think that is how ISIS/ISIL got to become such a great presence?
What do you think we should do to DESTROY ISIS/ISIL?
Thank you for your time Sir. Hope you have a wonderful day!

GEN Stanley McChrystal advocates in point 1 to "create, train, and support a much wider group of regional talent" with language skills, in region training, and etc so we have a "group of people that are truly comfortable and have been able to develop relationships." As Foreign Area Officers with EXACTLY this skill set, we hear all the time that senior leader demand for FAOs is extremely high. GEN (R) McChrystal's comments provide the proof. The Army FAO program--and the other similar Service programs--are of extremely high-value. But it takes 4+ years and $$$$$$$$ to make and train a FAO (language, in-region training, graduate school); if this is a demand, it will be interesting to see if DoD expands the programs. My guess: no. Why? It costs too much to make a FAO.

Kyle, great point and question. Unfortunately, the answer is that I didn't do enough to take on the bureaucracy. Within my commands I made changes within my authority, but like many other senior leaders, I tended to view "Big Army" issues as separate and assumed someone else would take those on. Of course "we" (all of us) own the Army. And I wish I'd taken a bit more time and effort to push against the kind of bureaucracy that simply seems to creep into most organizations as they get big.

Thank you, GEN Stanley McChrystal . I was hoping you had some success or some helpful tips for the rest of us. A lot of us see your former position AS Big-Army. But, as you alluded to, the lines may be mostly imaginary.

Since you answered my question, does this mean I have to buy another copy of your book, "Team of Teams"?

On 1, I don't know all the details of the differences. I thought that Guard/Reserve members retired at a later date, but most other aspects were very similar. So I'm not sure what I'd change.
The real point that your question uncovers is that I SHOULD know each system enough to understand and compare them. If an active duty senior leader is separated enough from the Guard/Reserve components on things like this, it means we have a ways to go in making the entire force a single, cohesive entity.

thanks for the answer sir
the biggest difference is that as guard and reserves retirees we have to wait until age 60-62 to start drawing retirement and the pay is alot less than active duty due to the points system
thank you again sir

MSgt Keith Hebert, as far as the difference between the Active Duty Soldiers and Reserve or Guard Soldiers Retirement system. I believe the Reserve and Guard has the better deal, in that they can build a retirement through there civilian employment or what ever kind of savings plan they may develop.
At the same time you build your Military retirement, the Reserve or Guard Retirement pay is based on the number of points accumulated throughout your career. I believe you can accumulate as much as 7500 pts.. This all depends on the individual, are you willing to do the extra work to earn every point available.

If you do the minimum you get that!!!!!

Where as the Soldiers from active duty goes, they get what they get from their service and then has to start over with starting a civilian retirement. Look at GEN Stanley McChrystal, he is still working. That should tell you something. A Four star General. There is not that many Generals that retire and go out into the sunset and kick back.

Your Retirement has always been in your hands, make the most of it.

I plan on retiring by the age of 62 and being a greeter at Walmart and enjoying the remaining years with my wife

Very true SFC
Now when you equate the points to pay then you will see a E9 maybe getting a $800-1000 check after 20 years( and this a guess on actuall pay). Please correct me if I am wrong

You're right, the educational difference is shrinking rapidly, and that will likely continue. That's actually a really good thing. I think what will happen is that the differences between officers and NCO's won't be education - it will be career focus. Officers will have different career paths from NCO's (resulting in different skills over time and different experiences). Deciding to become an Officer or NCO will be less an education or opportunity issue - than a personal choice. I think that will continue to shrink the disparity in pay and other incentives. It will also change the relationships fundamentally (although they've already been evolving for years).