"It is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest, to make sure that al-Qaeda and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively in those areas," Obama declared. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities, and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks.

"After eight years - some of those years in which we did not have . . . either the resources or the strategy to get the job done - it is my intention to finish the job," he said at a White House news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Obama is expected to make his case to the nation in a televised speech Tuesday night. He declined to provide any specifics about his strategy yesterday, including the size of a U.S. military buildup, how he proposes to pay for it, or how he intends to end U.S. engagement in Afghanistan.

But he predicted that he would turn around public opinion on the war. "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive," he said.

McClatchy Newspapers reported Monday that Obama and his national security team had finished work on a plan to send an additional 34,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan in phases, beginning in March and ending at the close of 2010.

That plan, which would cost more than $75 billion annually to carry out, contains "decision points" at which the administration would reassess the situation in Afghanistan, U.S. officials said. Obama could decide, depending on how much military or political progress had been made, to continue sending the additional forces, end the flow and adopt a more limited strategy, or begin planning a withdrawal, they said.

Obama said that in addition to the military campaign, his "comprehensive strategy" for Afghanistan also would include civilian and diplomatic components. In his speech, he is expected to appeal to NATO allies and press them on their obligations as partners in the war effort.

The strategy, the officials said, is to couple the troop increase with greater anticorruption efforts, along with political reforms, redoubled aid programs, and expanded Afghan security forces. That effort is aimed at weakening the Taliban-led insurgency and persuading some insurgents to negotiate with the Karzai government.

"There are some in Congress who will be receptive to the idea that we're seeking a political solution and open to encouraging negotiations," one official said.

Some officials fear that linking the U.S. buildup to military and political benchmarks will encourage insurgents to spurn negotiations and wait for the inevitable withdrawal of U.S.-led international forces. Taliban-led insurgents "just drag their feet, play for time, and then we go," said one U.S. official - who, like others who commented for this report, requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

"If they get the idea that we're not committed for as long as it takes, but only for as long as we've got, they have no reason to negotiate with anyone," another U.S. official said. "Right now, they think they're winning, and so one reason to send more troops now is to disabuse them of that notion."

Extremist leaders are likely to interpret Obama's vow to finish the war during his presidency as a sign that they can wait out the United States, as the North Vietnamese did in the Vietnam conflict; as Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah did in Lebanon in 1984; and as Islamic extremists did in Somalia in 1994, another U.S. official said.

A senior U.S. official said that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had reached out to the Taliban and other extremist groups with the tacit acquiescence of U.S. officials, and called the diplomatic efforts "strictly Pakistani and Saudi initiatives."

The Pakistanis and the Saudis have their own reasons for trying to talk to the groups, several officials said. Pakistan "wants to make sure it has a say" in whatever happens in Afghanistan, one said, while the Saudis worry that a militant victory over the United States in Afghanistan could trigger an Islamist revolution in their country.

Nevertheless, one defense official said: "Encouraging this outreach . . . may be a way to help the administration reassure Congress and the allies that it isn't betting all its chips on a military solution in Afghanistan."

Military officials have said Obama is choosing one of the least-risky options he was presented but one still expected to lead to increased U.S. casualties without guarantee of success.

The U.S. war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has warned that the war risks failure without a large troop infusion. Although he preferred a higher troop figure, about 40,000, McChrystal is expected to tell Congress next week that this lesser addition still gives him the tools to better combat insurgents in the south and east of Afghanistan.

15 Face Afghan Corruption Probe

Three Afghan cabinet officials and

12 former ministers are under investigation for alleged corruption, the attorney general's office said yesterday.

Action on the accusations could signal whether the government is serious about fighting graft.

President Hamid Karzai pledged in his second inaugural address last week to support the arrests of anyone involved in corruption.

International leaders have

threatened to halt troops and development money unless Karzai tackles the problem.

Deputy Attorney General Fazel Ahmad Faqiryar declined to name the ministers under investigation and said none had been questioned yet.

Faqiryar said that under Afghan law, a special court is needed to prosecute a cabinet minister. "Fortunately that court is being established very soon," he said.

Earlier this month, U.S. officials alleged that Afghanistan's minister of mines, Muhammad Ibrahim Adel, had taken a $20 million bribe. He denied taking bribes.

- Associated Press