It was an interesting and forceful point Bush made in two of the three debates. It's been a contentious issue that is the subject of much Republican hand wringing. It's the subject heading of a misleading but frightening email making the rounds on American college student's in-boxes.

The draft.

Bush pointed out in the debates that we would remain an "all-volunteer" army. Republicans in general have been worried sick about poll numbers that show, overwhelmingly, young adults between the ages of 18-25 think that Bush will reinstate the draft. The Republican Party is so scared it has sent a "cease and desist" letter to Rock the Vote for even discussing the draft issue.

It's all well and good that Michelle Malkin (Washington Times columnist, a poor Ann Coulter-lite and not a military specialist) says in reference to the draft "Not. Gonna. Happen." Apparently 75 percent of U.S. youth think it will. Why is this?

Well, you could posit that we're misinformed. After all, 18-25 year-olds are a coveted consumer demographic, but we're not known as doing a lot of heavy intellectual lifting. Maybe we're not using our intellect but our guts when we think about the draft.

The draft is such political Kryptonite that when Rep. Charles Rangel tried to get a bill to the floor that would address issues with the draft it was soundly trounced. He wanted to raise the issue though, fairly enough, that the draft disproportionately affects people of color and people on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder.

Bush insists there will be no draft, Rumsfeld insists there will be no draft, and most leaders involved in our current conflict think (and hope and pray) there will be no draft.

It's simply the people fighting it and the people who may have to fight it who think there will be a draft. That's a huge reality gap the President just doesn't seem able to close.

Last week there was the extraordinary story of a platoon of soldiers (Reservists, fittingly) who refused to go on a 200-mile round trip delivery of contaminated fuel in rickety trucks with no air or ground armor support. The soldiers were all briefly detained (or not, depends on who you believe, them or the military) and then released. The fuel was later delivered by a different platoon.

These soldiers are clearly in violation of military rules. Refusing to carry out a direct order is generally grounds for disciplinary action. However, the absurdity of it all has forced the military into a defensive posture and highlights what many feel is incredibly wrong in Iraq.

The soldiers said their orders were a "suicide mission." They were clearly disturbed by their inability to defend themselves, or the quality of the equipment they were using. Why couldn't they get armor support? Why didn't they have better equipment? Because we really are overextended in Iraq and the money, the vast amounts of taxpayer money, getting sunk into Iraq still isn't enough.

Why isn't it enough? Because contrary to Bush's insistence that we have a strong coalition (a clear falsehood so undercut by reality it's amazing he can maintain a straight face while saying it) we are virtually going it alone in Iraq.

I have a friend in the Special Forces just outside Ramadi. His emails are disturbing and desperate. He describes sleeping in his foxhole, driving into Fallujah to "create contact," which means getting shot at, and the lack of a clear understanding as to why they're even there present among almost all his fellow soldiers.

The same feeling permeates most of America's youth and about half of all voters. We simply cannot believe a single reason that the Bush administration offers us for why we are in Iraq. All reasons given have been proven irrefutably false from WMD's to connections with al-Queda to a quick and easy war followed by a self-paid reconstruction.

If the rumors of the draft won't go away it's not because of what the Bush Administration says, it's because of what the Bush Administration does.

By the way, a disturbing AP article this week fuels my October surprise lookout for the week. AP reporters said U.S. soldiers are under more frequent attacks from the Syrian border and that mortars have struck near U.S. soldiers (but caused no injuries) five times in the last week.

Will Syria, or perhaps Iran, be next on the list of nations that pose an "imminent threat?" Since this single-minded administration has shown us nothing to the contrary in fighting our global, never-ending, never-winnable war on terror, why shouldn't 18-25 year olds be afraid of a draft? How else could the current administration fulfill its goals without one?

Until that answer is given in concrete terms, and not the easily broken pledge of a president, I don't see how this president can expect America's youth to think otherwise.

Rob Deters ([email protected]) is a third-year law student.