National security adviser James Jones arrived in Islamabad yesterday for a personal update on whether Pakistan's government and military are willing and able to play the crucial role envisioned for them in each of the several options President Obama is considering. One scenario in particular, in which increased numbers of U.S. ground troops would battle the Taliban in southern Afghanistan while insurgents in the north and east are attacked from the air, requires an aggressive companion effort by Pakistan along the border.

Jones also wants a close reading on the stability of the government in Pakistan, where President Asif Ali Zardari is being buffeted by political and military challenges and is under strong public pressure not to bow to perceived U.S. demands.

In Afghanistan, long-standing administration concerns about newly reelected President Hamid Karzai were spotlighted this week with the disclosure of warnings from U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry about deploying any new troops. In cables to Washington, Eikenberry said the strategy decision should be delayed until Karzai demonstrates his willingness to end corruption and mismanagement.

As Obama nears a decision, proponents of differing options have questioned whether either Kabul or Islamabad is up to the task. "Do we have any assurances of what Pakistan will do?" said a senior administration official identified with advisers who are skeptical of a large new deployment. "At least in Iraq, you had some functioning government there at the time of the surge. In Afghanistan, there is no government there."

Eikenberry also emerged this week as a skeptic, and published reports about his reservations could worsen already tense relations between Karzai and his Western allies. The ambassador's interventions were all the more startling because of his background as an Army general commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan just two years ago and his low public profile since his arrival in Kabul as envoy last spring.

Personable but formal, Eikenberry at first glance seems an unlikely spoiler for the military's proposed addition of between 10,000 and 40,000 troops to the 68,000-strong U.S. force now in Afghanistan. But dating from his military assignments there, he has been a consistent proponent of pushing the Afghan government and security forces to take a leading role whenever possible and has expressed concern that the presence of large numbers of U.S. forces could hinder Afghan troops and government officials from seizing the initiative.

In the recent cables, Eikenberry again raised these points as well as the high costs, totaling more than $20 billion annually, associated with even the low end of troop increases that Obama is considering. And he questioned whether the administration should so easily surrender what little apparent leverage it has over Karzai without some evidence he will begin to move in the desired direction.

Before the end of the month, Karzai is expected to select a new cabinet. The administration wants him to abandon his reliance on certain warlords and corrupt officials and reform the weak government that has angered the Afghan public while galvanizing the insurgency. So far, U.S. exhortations appear to have had the opposite effect.

"These sorts of statements would make anybody defensive and can backfire," a senior Afghan official close to Karzai said of Eikenberry's concerns.

"My guess is he's starting to feel this is not a government he can work with," a U.N. official in Kabul said of Eikenberry. "In which case, how can you put more American troops in the line of fire for this?"

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One that no strategy decision would be announced until Obama returns to the United States on Thursday from his nine-day trip to Asia.