Obama left for a week-long trip to Asia amid revelations that his ambassador to Kabul, ex-military commander Karl Eikenberry, had expressed deep concerns about sending in more troops until Karzai’s re-elected government improved its performance.

Senior officials said Obama had discussed Eikenberry’s concerns, sent via diplomatic memos, during a war cabinet meeting at the White House where several options were laid out for the president as he deliberates his strategy on the increasingly unpopular war.

At the meeting on Wednesday, Obama called for more information on timelines for troop levels and when Afghan security forces would be competent to take over, according to several U.S. officials.

“The sticking points are timelines and the credibility of the Afghan government,” said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is a clear question in his mind. He wants to be able to turn it over as soon as he can and he needs a valid Afghan partner,” added the official of Obama’s thinking.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made this point during a visit to Wisconsin, telling reporters the issue was how best to show resolve and at the same time signal to the Afghans and the American people that it was not an “open-ended commitment.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she shared concerns raised by a number of leaders about corruption in Afghanistan, a lack of transparency, poor governance and absence of the rule of law.

“Corruption is corrosive in a society,” she told reporters on a trip to the Philippines. “I think the corruption issue really goes to the heart of whether the people of Afghanistan feel that the government is on their side, is working for them.”

Concrete steps

Obama’s strategy review has involved, among other elements, how to combine some of the best features of various options presented to him by his advisors, Gates said.

Proposals to send at least 30,000 more troops have been gaining support from key advisors, including Gates and military chiefs, as part of an expanded counter-insurgency plan.

U.S. officials familiar with Obama’s deliberations said his administration was trying to increase pressure on Karzai — who will be inaugurated for a second term next week — so he would commit to concrete steps on security, governance and corruption.

“It’s a question of, how do we build leverage with the Afghan government?” one of the officials said.

Obama did not reject the proposed troop options, which range from 10,000 to about 40,000 additional troops, the official said.

“He wants to see it as a complete package” that includes goals for handing over security responsibilities to Afghan forces, one of the officials added.

Precisely what leverage the United States has with Karzai is unclear, but there is impatience over his attitude so far.

U.S. officials have been disappointed by many of Karzai’s public comments, particularly during a PBS interview last week in which he appeared to blame Western donors for causing much of the corruption.

“It is less about securing leverage but how that informs your own strategy. You work out what sort of partner you have and determine your own force level,” said one Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

A core element of Western strategy will be to bolster military training for Afghanistan so that it does not become a safe haven for militants, the head of NATO said.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview with BBC Television that he shared Eikenberry’s concerns about sending more troops to Afghanistan, but that the allies should commit to more training for Afghan forces.

But he added: “We are in Afghanistan for the sake of our own security and therefore we should stay committed and stay for as long as it takes to finish the job.”