Twelve of the 13 casualties in the Fort Hood massacre were soldiers. But were they combatants, and was an Army post in the middle of Texas a combat zone?

If the answer is yes -- as many Texas lawmakers say -- the victims of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage would be eligible for Purple Hearts and other benefits not typically available for soldiers injured or killed on American soil, including maximum life insurance payouts and extra housing allowances for family.

But this is an issue that transcends both benefits and semantics, just as the "global war on terror" -- for those who embrace that terminology -- transcends borders and nationalities.

"They are combatants. They just didn't expect to be combatants at Fort Hood," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "It demonstrates that a war zone is not just Afghanistan and Iraq. It's even here at home when you have homegrown radicalized Muslims who become jihadists."

Last week, Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, filed legislation that states that the soldiers shot by Hasan "shall be deemed ... to have been killed or wounded in a combat zone as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States."

"As far as I'm concerned, this was an attack by an enemy upon American troops on American soil," Carter said.

Cornyn, joined by GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman , filed a Senate version of the measure on Friday.

Congress would be labeling Hasan an enemy of the country where he was born and which he had sworn to protect as an officer. And it would be saying something extraordinary: America got a glimpse of Kabul and Baghdad in the heart of Texas, which hasn't seen international combat since the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War.

Hutchison asserted that the Fort Hood victims "were targeted by a terrorist because they were soldiers about to be deployed to combat operations overseas. On that terrible day, Fort Hood became a battlefield in the 'war on terror.' "

Interestingly, jihadists also embrace the idea that Fort Hood was a front in that war, and that potential combatants deserve the same treatment as actual combatants.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the New Mexico-born Yemini cleric to whom Hasan turned for guidance in the past year, and who called him a hero, argued that the shootings were justified because they prevented soldiers from deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, this is strangle-the-baby-in-the-crib logic -- abhorrent to those who view Hasan's victims as heroes and are simply seeking enhanced benefits for them and their kin.

The House bill has nearly 80 sponsors, about a third of them Democrats, including Texans Chet Edwards of Waco, Solomon Ortiz of Corpus Christi and Henry Cuellar of Laredo. Most Texas Republicans have signed on.

President Barack Obama has rejected the Bush-era characterization of a "global war on terror." On those rare occasions when aides slip, the White House quickly issues clarifications to make sure no one infers a shift in mind-set.

As for the Hasan incident, the administration has resisted labeling it an act of terror or war. This has caused some exasperation in Congress.

"Every day, it grows more clear that the shooting at Fort Hood was the worst terrorist attack on America since September 11, 2001," Lieberman said.

The tussle over labels and the push for combat designation reflect ideological differences, and the fact that language hasn't quite kept pace with evolving 21st century threats.

Still, it's sobering to think that Texas has once again seen combat, because that implies a theater of operations that truly has no borders.

Todd J. Gillman is Washington Bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News.