Washington is witnessing two parallel debates around the conflict in Libya. On the ground, the Libyan rebels are making slow political and military progress. NATO continues efforts to break the stalemate, but a desirable outcome - specifically the outlines of a post-conflict or post-Qaddafi Libya - remains unclear. At home, Congress is examining its own role in authorizing continued U.S. operations in Libya, with lawmakers voting for an amendment to cut off funding for the operation and passing a symbolic resolution chiding President Obama for not seeking Congressional authorization for U.S. intervention. Despite this debate, neither Congress nor the administration has presented a unified view of what the process should be.

On the ground, Libyan rebels fight and organize as NATO increases pressure on Qaddafi; not yet a real break in the stalemate. In recent days the Libyan rebels have seen a number of positive developments. The New York Times reports that Germany has recognized the rebel government: "Germany, which declined to participate in the NATO air campaign against Libya, on Monday recognized the opposition National Transitional Council as the legitimate representative of Libya, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said during a visit to the rebel capital of Benghazi." The rebels have also made military progress. AP reports, "Libyan rebels yesterday broke out toward Tripoli from the opposition-held port of Misurata 140 miles to the east, cracking a government siege as fighters across the country mounted a resurgence in their four-month-old revolt." Rebel movements come as NATO tries to break the stalemate with increased bombing on Tripoli, with only marginal success. Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution and Matthew Waxman of the Council on Foreign Relations explain, "NATO forces and their Libyan rebel allies have scored some notable successes over Qaddafi. Eight high-ranking Libyan officers, including five generals, defected to Italy this week. Rebel forces drove Qaddafi's troops back from Misrata last month, ending the suffocating siege of the strategically located city. But despite these advances, neither side appears poised to break out of the months-long military stalemate in western Libya." [NY Times, 6/13/11. AP, 6/14/11. Daniel Byman and Matthew Waxman, 6/2/11]

Congress debates its own role in war-making decisions. Politico explains the debate's complexity: "Both parties are divided on how much to support the White House. Some senators are pushing for a resolution that authorizes force in the nation, others are looking to impose new reporting requirements on the administration, still others want to punt on the issue altogether since the Senate already backed a no-fly-zone in Libya earlier this spring." In an article for Foreign Policy Magazine, legal scholars Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway put this debate in a historical context: "For centuries, the president and Congress had wrangled over the kind of actions that counted as a ‘war' for constitutional purposes, with presidents exploiting legal ambiguities to cut Congress out of key decisions. The [1973 War Powers] act broke this impasse by imposing a time limit on all ‘hostilities' - a functional term meant to eliminate legalistic evasions the White House had developed over what counted as ‘war.'" But neither Congress nor the administration has offered a clear view in this case.

AFP reports today that, "The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya. Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163... The same measure was presented in another bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security but failed to pass on June 2.  Lawmakers must still approve the appropriations bill as a whole and the measure must still be approved by the Senate... The House of Representatives recently passed a symbolic resolution chiding Obama for not seeking congressional approval for US involvement in Libya and giving him until June 17 to respond." Meanwhile in the Senate, Politico reports, "Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) may scrap a resolution backing President Barack Obama's military strategy in Libya, the latest sign of the troubles facing the White House in winning congressional approval for the two-month-old NATO-led bombing campaign. Kerry, who drafted a resolution with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other senior senators backing the military campaign, told reporters he may drop plans to push for the plan altogether. ‘I don't know about a resolution on Libya,' Kerry told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol. ‘I don't know if it's necessary.'" [Politico, 6/8/11. Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway, 6/1/11. AFP, 6/14/11]

Preparations important for a post-war Libya. It's essential that U.S. and Western partners begin to plan with different Libyan factions for the post-conflict Libya. As Jayshree Bajoria of the Council on Foreign Relations writes, "Given the lack of civil society and any effective national institutions in the country, a post-Qaddafi Libya will face enormous governance challenges. Libya will need a new constitution, civil, social, and political institutions, as well as economic reconstruction." That planning has been slow to nonexistent so far. Daniel Serwer, an expert in post-conflict reconstruction at Johns Hopkins University, explains to Reuters, "I'm astonished there hasn't been more discussion of this. Gaddafi could leave tomorrow and we wouldn't be ready. There's a whole set of institutions that have to be created from scratch." [Jayshree Bajoria, 4/7/11. Daniel Serwer via Reuters, 6/7/11]

What We're Reading

Syrian troops rounded up hundreds of people in a sweep through villages near Jisr al-Shughour, fleeing residents said, after President Bashar al-Assad's army retook the rebellious northwestern town

Egypt's military rulers told human rights advocates that at least 7,000 civilians have been sentenced to prison terms by military courts since Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

The CIA is expected to begin operating armed drone aircraft over Yemen, expanding the hunt for al Qaeda operatives in a country where counterterrorism efforts have been disrupted by political chaos.

The U.S. is disappointed and suspicious that militants in Pakistan apparently were tipped off that American intelligence officials had discovered two of their suspected bomb-making facilities.

China said it will not resort to the use of force to resolve maritime border disputes in the South China Sea.

India's inflation accelerated in May, topping market estimates and adding to pressure on the central bank to tighten monetary policy.

A United Nations report found that Gaza's unemployment rate was among the world's highest, at 45.2% in late 2010, as Israel's blockade of the territory enters its fifth year.

Nepal destroyed its last minefield, making it the second country in Asia after China to become landmine-free.

A U.S. Congressional report suggests 70% of firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes in 2009 and 2010 and submitted for tracing came from the US.

Commentary of the Day

Heather Hurlburt writes that fifty years on, the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about is still very much with us - a persistent pattern that ought to disturb fiscal conservatives, antiwar liberals, small-government Tea Partiers, and market fundamentalists alike - but it's not inevitable that it must exist forever in this form.

Michael A. Cohen and Michael Wahid Hanna contend that there is no question that the U.S. must leave Afghanistan eventually, but withdrawal must be done in a way that prevents chaos and ensures that America's interests in the region are protected.

Burce Bartlett suggests that the almost certain scaling-down of the U.S. Department of Defense and foreign military commitments is going to require serious rethinking of what we perceive to be our strategic threats and whether the United States can continue to afford to be the world's peacekeeper.

Chris Doyle says that foreign intervention would not be welcome in Syria as it was in Libya.