This Sunday on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer will be joined by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - there will be no shortage of questions.
As the U.S. Military mission in Libya enters its second week, more and more Americans are starting to wonder, "How will this end?"
The U.S. has now begun the process of handing over "command and control" of the no-fly-zone to NATO, but there is confusion in Washington as to exactly what that means.
"All NATO Allies are committed to fulfill their obligations under the UN resolution. That is why we have decided to assume responsibility for the No Fly Zone," said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a statement. Later he said that "What we have decided tonight is to take the responsibility for enforcing the No-Fly Zone with the aim to protect the civilian population, and the mandate doesn't go beyond that, of course we can act in self-defence, but what we will do is to enforce the No-Fly Zone and ensure that we protect the civilian population."
The question is to what extent will NATO go on the offense to protect the civilian population of Libya from attack from Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's regime. Last night, a senior American official said "There is now consensus at 28 members of the alliance that NATO should include in its mission and under its command and control not just the no-fly zone but also the need to protect civilians."
And that official was asked repeatedly about the gap between the U.S. position that NATO has taken over responsibility of the entire mission, and the NATO statements that it has only agreed to take over the no-fly-zone with the rest of the mission being unclear.
In response, the official said NATO decided to do "two things: number one, to execute a decision to take over command and control of the no-fly zone... NATO also reached a political agreement that it needs to include under - within that mission and within the command and control all other aspects of UNSCR (United Nations Security Council Resolution) 1973, including the protection of civilian and civilian areas against the actual threat of attack."
Back at NATO, Secretary General Rasmussen put it this way: "At this moment, there will still be a coalition operation and a NATO operation. But we are considering whether NATO should take on that broader responsibility in accordance with the U.N. Security Council resolution, but that decision has not been made yet."
So which is it?
Will NATO be running the whole operation or will U.S. forces still have a crucial role in going beyond the no-fly-zone to protect Libyan civilians? These will be among the issues discussed when Bob Schieffer talks to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates this Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."
The U.S. mission in Libya will be among several other topics to be discussed. While U.S. sailors and airmen are actively engaged in Libya, the U.S. is also keeping a close eye on the internal political developments going on in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria - all very important countries to U.S. foreign policy and national security.
But Libya is still this weekend's big issue. Underlying the NATO question is what exactly is the end game for U.S. operations in Libya? The president has made it abundantly clear that a foreign policy goal of the United States is regime change in Libya -- the removal of Qaddafi.
But at the same time, the White House has been clear that the military action there is "limited" to protecting civilians and not intended to extract Qaddafi from power. The general in charge of the mission, General Carter Ham, told ABC News that "he doesn't think about" Qaddafi and that the Libyan ruler is "not in his mission set."
That "contradiction" is one of the questions that House Speaker John Boehner posed to the president in a letter this week. "Why would the U.S. commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?" he asked.
That's another big question for U.S. policymakers.
And finally, how does the White House defend its Libyan policy against the charges -- made by those who want to replace the president -- that the administration has been weak and unsure in the face of the uprising in Libya and the aggression by Qaddafi?
"The President has failed the first test of leadership by not defining how our vital national interests are at stake in Libya," said possible presidential contender, Representative Michele Bachmann.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney took it a step further: "There's no question but that his inability to have a clear and convincing foreign policy made him delegate to the United Nations and the Arab League a decision about our involvement there," he told the Hugh Hewitt radio show.
Romney says the lack of a clear foreign policy shows the White House doesn't believe in the greatness of America. "We're following the French into Libya. I appreciate the fact that others are participating in this effort, but I think we look to America to be the leader of the world," he said.
There's certainly a lot to talk about as Secretaries Gates and Clinton Face the Nation this weekend.