I believe to define the action you must first define the perpetrator. While we’ve fought stateless enemies before, in places like the Philippines, Mexico, and Vietnam, those stateless enemies were, generally, targeting our armed forces. Was a member of the National Liberation Front of Vietnam a terrorist for shooting at American troops? No, however much I personally dislike his cause. A member of an organized resistance that targets only legitimate military targets is not by default a terrorist, though other actions may make him so. This would leave certainly some of the members of the current Iraqi and Afghan anti-governmental forces legitimate combatants, if not by international law then by international opinion (if you follow international law, an insurgent captured in arms against us has exactly zero rights), and probably deserving of some quasi prisoner-of-war status.

The targets of the anti-governmental forces are what really jump the gap from legitimate to terrorist. Legitimate forces target military forces, and while civilians may be killed or injured as collateral damage, their deaths are not the primary goal of the legitimate forces. Illegitimate forces target primarily civilians to achieve political goals. Simple, yes?

So, back to the issues of Major Nidal Hasan. He fits the second point, that he attacked legitimate military targets. Some of you are going to hate me for this one. Yes, they were for the most part unarmed, but being armed is not a prerequisite to be a lawful target. Forward observers for artillery and aircraft, even armed with only a radio or the sound of his voice, are clear cut military targets. They were deploying to a war that threatened the group Hasan felt the most loyalty to. In the same way we would feel no qualms about a strike on a Taliban training camp, the Major rationalized his actions as a preemptive strike.

Major Hasan does not fit the definition of terrorist or legal combatant, because of his lack of ties to an organized force. He is not a member of the civilian populace, “spontaneously taking up arms,” as the Geneva Conventions put it. He is someone who took shelter under a uniform averse to his loyalties, and used that shelter to aid in his premeditated murder.

For more on the definition of terrorism, Wikipedia has an article that beats the topic into a dead horse.

I’m a sophomore cadet in Air Force ROTC. Five days ago, I had a conversation with the Commandant of Cadets, who said in very nice terms that while my test scores and ROTC performance were good, I stood no chance of being selected to continue into the upperclass years if I did not improve my Physical Fitness Assessment (PFA) scores. My most recent score was 69/100. I need 75/100 to be even considered, and 80 to be more competetive. Basically, the gist of the conversation was “Run, Fat Boy, Run!”, which will remain the title of the blog until I pass the PFA or a better name is proposed.

After the meeting, I resolved to begin working out every day. I haven’t hit the track or the gym once since then. Lack of motivation? Yes.

So, as egocentric as it sounds, I’m going to be writing periodic posts about my workouts, results, improvements, and the like. For those uninitiated, the PFA consists of a 1.5 mile run, 1 minute of pushups, 1 of situps, and a body composition score (basically a measurement of your gut). My most recent score was 12:45 run, 35 situps, 8 (cringe) pushups. The most obvious area for improvement is the pushups, because the score scale slides. 20 pushups would get me 7 points out of 10 available, and after that each pushup is only worth like .2 points or less.

So, the journey begins tomorrow, with a 5 mile run interspersed with flutter kicks, pushups, and crunches. I’ve got six weeks before the next PFA, which, I am told, stands for Pure Fun Awesomeness. Wish me luck.

A link to more info about the PFA, for those interested: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/affitness.htm