Mandatory service -- of which the military is but one option -- is a grand idea.

As to mercenaries ... they were defending a French colonial empire, not French "liberty".  Are you suggesting that we use mercenaries to defend our global empire?

No problem with you disagreeing -- particularly because you do so in a positive way and don't call me an idiot (automatically "proving" how right your opinion therefore must be).  I, too, agree with the quaint notion that adults are responsible for their own actions and decisions.  I am glad you chose to take out a loan and didn't Bonnie & Clyde your way through college (I worked full-time jobs the whole time I was in college -- but then, that was back in the day when the USofA still honored its commitment to offer any qualified American citizen an affordable college education -- back before Ronald Reagan began dismantling that system).  In that vein, if a convicted murderer or rapist wishes to go to Iraq (where he might be able to get a job, since getting one here is pretty rough), he (or she) is certainly free to make that choice.  

But let me explain just a bit more.  If the purpose of recruiting ex-felons and mentally challenged individuals was to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, or improve their skills, or teach them a trade, then I would find a certain degree of nobility in the effort.  Do you honestly believe that is why the government is doing it?

It seems to me that if a person agrees with and supports our invasion and occupation of a sovereign state that never committed an act of aggression against us, then that person ought to enlist and walk their talk.  It seems to me that if the "war" in which we are engaged represents the greatest threat to our Union (and to liberty and sliced bread) at least since the Cold War and possibly since World War II (analogies many who support the effort have drawn), then our Leader should be asking all of us to make sacrifices for the cause.

Instead, he leads us into the Antiseptic War.  It's clean.  It's far away.  No one that you know has to go over there and fight it (unless they choose to go).  The TV provides us with nightly 3-second video and sound bytes of rocket launchers launching, of bombed out cars littering once peaceful neighborhood streets, of soldiers walking in formation through hellacious looking streets -- but we don't see dead and mangled bodies, we don't see the coffins when they come home, the only exposure we get is controlled, manipulated, and sterile.  There are more "contractors" in Iraq than soldiers, none of whom are bound by codes of military conduct or seemingly held accountable for their cowboy actions (not that everything they do is "cowboy", or not worth some effort).  And there are increasing numbers of troubled Americans being shipped over there to excise their demons on other people.  

Which is the basis of my objection.  I think the reason we have relaxed rules and sought waivers is because (1) we were sold a bill of goods on this war, and did not approach it properly in the first place, (2) the goal is to pass the cost off to anyone but those benefitting most from having this war ... a few gangsters and murderers running around in a war zone makes perfectly good sense if you have no sense of honor or responsibility, and don't want to make your supporters uncomfortable about possibly having to cover the cost of your little adventure.