As far as the medium of film can't get beyond the categories of past, present, and future, then yes--the general was in the future and his words affected the present.
But this is the weird paradox of time travel (or more appropriately for this film, timelessness, or the collapse of linear time): once it comes into existence, it exists virtually in all times. The only way that we as viewers can access the narrative is to see her interaction with the general as a future moment that has consequences on the past; but if we extrapolate the premise, then it was also in the past. Memories and projections become interchangeable, which is why some of her memories wind up being projections; following that logic, we could also say that what we interpret as projections are also memories.
I think everything you're saying makes sense, I just think there are ways to dismantle these categories, and I think the film provides the ammunition to do so. The film can't do all of this for us, since it would take too much time (haha) and would ultimately fall apart as a film; so it's incumbent on us to realize the ramifications, even if the film doesn't make them explicit.