Yesterday's UN Security Council vote authorizing a No-Fly Zone and more against Libya has brought the United States and its allies into another Middle Eastern war. The charge leveled by advocates of the war that Obama has been "dithering" is as silly as is the counter-argument that the West has been itching for an excuse to invade Libya to seize its oil. The administration clearly understands that military intervention in Libya is a terrible idea, and hoped for as long as possible that the Libyan opposition could prevail without outside military assistance. It only signed on to the intervention when it became clear that, as DNI James Clapper testifed to great public abuse, Qaddafi had tipped the balance and was likely to win. The prospect of Qaddafi surviving and taking his revenge on his people and the region is what forced the hand of the United States and the Security Council. 
 
 I'm conflicted about the intervention, torn between the anguished appeals from Libyans and Arabs desperate for support against Qaddafi and concerns about the many deep, unanswered and at this point largely unasked questions about what comes next -- whether Qaddafi survives or falls. Now, the hope has to be that the UN's resolution will quickly lead Qaddafi's regime to crumble and create the conditions for a rapid political process to change that regime without the actual use of military force. 
 
 The intervention is a high-stakes gamble. If it succeeds quickly, and Qaddafi's regime crumbles as key figures jump ship in the face of its certain demise, then it could reverse the flagging fortunes of the Arab uprisings. Like the first Security Council resolution on Libya, it could send a powerful message that the use of brutal repression makes regime survival less rather than more likely. It would put real meat on the bones of the "Responsibility to Protect" and help create a new international norm. And it could align the U.S. and the international community with al-Jazeera and the aspirations of the Arab protest movement. I have heard from many protest leaders from other Arab countries that success in Libya would galvanize their efforts, and failure might crush their hopes. 
 
 But if it does not succeed quickly, and the intervention degenerates into a long quagmire of air strikes, grinding street battles, and growing pressure for the introduction of outside ground forces, then the impact could be quite different. Despite the bracing scenes of Benghazi erupting into cheers at the news of the Resolution, Arab support for the intervention is not nearly as deep as it seems and will not likely survive an extended war. If Libyan civilians are killed in airstrikes, and especially if foreign troops enter Libyan territory, and images of Arabs killed by U.S. forces replace images of brave protestors battered by Qaddafi's forces on al-Jazeera, the narrative could change quickly into an Iraq-like rage against Western imperialism. What began as an indigenous peaceful Arab uprising against authoritarian rule could collapse into a spectacle of war and intervention. 
 
 The Libya intervention is also complicated by the trends in the rest of the region. There is currently a bloody crackdown going on in U.S.-backed Bahrain, with the support of Saudi Arabia and the GCC. The Yemeni regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh is currently carrying out some of its bloodiest repression yet. Will the Responsibility to Protect extend to Bahrain and Yemen? This is not a tangential point. One of the strongest reasons to intervene in Libya is the argument that the course of events there will influence the decisions of other despots about the use of force. If they realize that the international community will not allow the brutalization of their own people, and a robust new norm created, then intervention in Libya will pay off far beyond its borders. But will ignoring Bahrain and Yemen strangle that new norm in its crib? 
 
 On my flight to Beirut earlier this month, I read the new book by Foreign Affairs editor Gideon Rose, How Wars End. Rose warns that leaders should never go into a military intervention without thinking through the political endgame. Again and again, he warns, the United States has gone into wars focused on the urgency of the need for action without thinking through where it really wants and needs to go. War advocates prefer to focus on the urgency of action, usually minimizing the likely risks and costs of war, exaggerating the likely benefits, and discounting the viability of all non-military courses of action -- exactly the script on Libya the last few weeks. Thinking about the messy endgame would only complicate such advocacy, and so it gets set aside. 
 
 One might think that the disastrous post-war trajectories of Iraq and Afghanistan would have forever ended such an approach to military interventions, but here we are. Has anyone really seriously thought through the role the U.S. or international community might be expected to play should Qaddafi fall? Or what steps will follow should the No Fly Zone and indirect intervention not succeed in driving Qaddafi from power? No, there's no time for that... there never is. For now, I will be hoping, deeply and fervently, that the Libyan regime quickly crumbles in the face of the international community's actions. Reports that it has accepted the resolution and a ceasefire could provide the space for the kind of political settlement many of us have been advocating. Let's hope. ||||| Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- As rebel and pro-government forces in Libya maneuvered on the battlefield Wednesday, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi urged U.S. President Barack Obama to end the NATO bombing of his war-torn country. 
 
 Gadhafi made the appeal in a letter to the American president, a senior administration official said. 
 
 But the official said there was "nothing new" in the letter, the thrust of which was an appeal for an end to the alliance's air operations. It contained no offers to negotiate or step down, and the official said the administration isn't taking the note seriously. 
 
 Gadhafi asked Obama to stop the "unjust war against a small people of a developing country" and said those in the opposition are terrorists and members of al Qaeda, the official said. 
 
 "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," Gadhafi wrote, according to the official. "Despite all this you will always remain our son." 
 
 The strongman expressed hope that Obama wins re-election next year, the official added. And he wrote that a democratic society cannot be built through missiles and aircraft. 
 
 "You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action," the leader wrote to the president. 
 
 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the NATO strikes will stop when Gadhafi steps down and leaves the country. 
 
 "I don't think there is any mystery about what is expected from Mr. Gadhafi at this time," Clinton said. 
 
 The letter came amid diplomatic, economic and military developments in Libya, which remains in a deadly stalemate as pro-Gadhafi forces battle opposition fighters demanding democracy and an end to Gadhafi's nearly 42-year-rule. 
 
 A British airstrike hit an oil field in the eastern Libyan town of Sarir on Wednesday, causing damage to a main pipeline, Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told reporters. 
 
 A tanker carrying crude oil left the eastern Libyan port of Tobruk on Wednesday in what was the first known export of oil by the fledgling opposition during the conflict, a sign of optimism for them. 
 
 Rebel fighters and pro-Gadhafi forces have been pushing back and forth between al-Brega and Ajdabiya, while residents in the western city of Misrata are spending their days in fear. 
 
 Also Wednesday, ex-U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, who met with Gadhafi within the past decade, paid a visit to the Libyan capital with a cease-fire plan and a clear message to the embattled ruler that he must step down. 
 
 Former U.S. Congressman Weldon says he will meet with Gadhafi 
 
 
 
 Weldon, speaking in an interview with CNN affiliate WPIX-TV in New York, said he planned to meet with Gadhafi and Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim. 
 
 "It's a very solemn time because there's so much at risk here," said Weldon, who led a congressional delegation to Libya in 2004 and is visiting Tripoli at Gadhafi's invitation. Weldon is a Republican who represented a suburban Philadelphia district. 
 
 "I'm here to tell him face to face it's time for him to leave. It's time for him to step down, allow the people to take over the government of this country." 
 
 In an opinion piece published Wednesday in The New York Times, Weldon said he is proposing a cease-fire, "with the Libyan Army withdrawing from contested cities and rebel forces ending attempts to advance." 
 
 There's been seesaw fighting between pro- and anti-Gadhafi troops between al-Brega and Ajdabiya, CNN's Ben Wedeman reported. 
 
 On Tuesday night, Gadhafi forces moved 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) from al-Brega to Ajdabiya, and then Wednesday, the rebels pushed them back 10 kilometers (six miles). 
 
 At one point, rebels let loose with barrage of rockets, and they were answered by artillery and mortars. 
 
 Gadhafi paid U.S. firms to polish his image 
 
 "It moves back and forth," Wedeman reported. 
 
 A CNN team saw equipment the rebels didn't have before such as night-vision goggles and two Milan anti-tank missiles. Fighters said they obtained the missiles from the transitional government in Benghazi but didn't know their origin. 
 
 Rebel leaders have criticized NATO's mission to help protect civilians in recent days, saying residents in Misrata and elsewhere have suffered under horrific attacks from pro-Gadhafi forces with little evidence of NATO air power overhead. 
 
 "I am extremely sorry to say this, but NATO truly disappointed us," Gen. Abdul Fatah Younis, the opposition's top military official, said Tuesday. "Civilians are being killed every day, including children, women and elderly. If NATO will wait another week, Misrata will be finished. No one will be left alive. Do they want to wait, and watch them die, and let this crime be a shameful disgrace for the international community forever?" 
 
 NATO Brig. Gen. Mark van Uhm said weather conditions and tactics by Gadhafi regime have hindered their efforts. 
 
 In addition to using human shields and hiding equipment in populated areas, pro-Gadhafi forces have started abandoning heavy military equipment in favor of the same kinds of cars and light trucks the rebels travel in, making it difficult for pilots to distinguish rebel convoys from those carrying forces loyal to the regime, van Uhm said. 
 
 Libyan opposition: Compromise with Gadhafi not an option 
 
 NATO is operating under a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force to protect Libyan civilians. 
 
 U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is "deeply concerned about the deterioriating situation facing civilians in Libyan cities under military attack," according to a statement. Conditions in Misrata are "especially grave," the statement said, "with reports of the use of heavy weapons to attack the city, where the population is trapped and unable, as a result of heavy shelling that has continued over several weeks, to receive basic supplies, including clean water, food and medicines." 
 
 But residents in Misrata said this week that Gadhafi forces have trapped the city, with snipers shooting indiscriminately. Access to food has been hampered. 
 
 "Normal life is a luxury that we don't have," one resident said. "I haven't taken my family out for four weeks now. All schools are closed, my children didn't go to school since the 19th of February. All government offices are closed. Even dead people are buried without death certificates." 
 
 After weeks of relentless fighting, a military victory for either side seems remote. A political or diplomatic solution might be the only way to end the crisis. 
 
 Weldon said that in addition to his proposals for Gadhafi's stepping down, a cease-fire on both sides and the withdrawal of government forces from key cities, he is calling for a halt in further advances by rebel forces; the creation of a joint interim government run by Libya's current prime minister and the opposition leader; unfettered humanitarian access; and the establishment of a parliamentary commission that would include U.S., Middle Eastern, European and African politicians helping to establish a new parliament in Libya. 
 
 Alleged Libyan rape victim thankful for support 
 
 As for the Gadhafi family, Weldon's proposals also suggest a possible title for Gadhafi as honorary chairman of the African Union and allowing his second-oldest son, Saif, to stand in elections. 
 
 On the economic front, the tanker with crude oil that left Tobruk was sailing to Qatar, where the oil will be refined, CNN confirmed. Final destination of the export is not known at this time. 
 
 The civil war in Libya has severely curtailed oil exports from the North African nation, which produced some 1.6 million barrels per day last year. This move symbolizes the opposition's intent to manage the country's affairs. 
 
 The U.S. Treasury has frozen more than $32 billion in assets held by Gadhafi and members of his regime. Asked whether the opposition should be able to have access to those funds, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the United States "is well aware there is an urgency, that the Transitional National Council does need funding if it's to survive, and we're looking at ways to assist that." But Toner said he did not know the status of the $32 billion. 
 
 CNN's Nic Robertson, Reza Sayah, Ben Wedeman, Elise Labott, Jill Dougherty and Yousuf Basil contributed to this report
– Marc Lynch hopes "fervently" that the UN's decision on Libya causes Moammar Gadhafi's regime to fall quickly. It could "reverse the flagging fortunes of the Arab uprisings" and put both the US and international community on the right side of the protest movement, he writes in Foreign Policy. But don't underestimate the risks, he warns, especially if the "intervention degenerates into a long quagmire of air strikes, grinding street battles, and growing pressure for the introduction of outside ground forces." The problem is that "Arab support for the intervention is not nearly as deep as it seems and will not likely survive an extended war," he writes. If Libyan civilians start getting killed by foreign troops, the current anti-Gadhafi narrative "could change quickly into an Iraq-like rage against Western imperialism." Gadhafi's quick declaration of a cease-fire suggests some kind of political settlement could be in the offing. "Let's hope." (Click to read about worries that Gadhafi's move is just a ploy.)