It didn’t take two weeks for Cirincione’s urging to become part of the brand-new Nuclear Posture Review. From page eleven:

The President has directed a review of post-New START arms control objectives, to consider future reductions in nuclear weapons. Several factors will influence the magnitude and pace of future reductions in U.S. nuclear forces below New START levels. …

Conduct follow-on analysis to set goals for future nuclear reductions below the levels expected in New START, while strengthening deterrence of potential regional adversaries, strategic stability vis-à-vis Russia and China, and assurance of our allies and partners.

Address non-strategic nuclear weapons, together with the non-deployed nuclear weapons of both sides, in any post-New START negotiations with Russia.

At a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Ellen Tauscher, the undersecretary of state for arms control who played a crucial role in negotiating New START, said that in her dealings with the Russians, she took note of a “Russian willingness” to “talk about new things, … a new effort” for arms reductions after New START is ratified.

All this is laid out before Presidents Obama and Medvedev even sign New START in Prague on Thursday, let alone Senate ratification, which is far from a forgone conclusion. How’s that for ambition?

Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary for George W. Bush and as a national security official for most GOP administrations going back to Gerald Ford, repeatedly and personally vouched that the treaty does not constrain any plans for European missile defense — a Republican priority — adding that it might “hopefully make [the Russians] a partner in a European-wide defense capability” at some point in the future. But between the treaty and the administration’s $5 billion request for maintaining the existing U.S. nuclear stockpile, “I think we addressed the concerns that may have been on the Hill.” Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, who helped negotiate the treaty, added that “this is a strategic offensive weapons treaty,” and discussions with the Russians all focused on that — meaning that missile defense isn’t impacted by its provisions — and the schedule for the phased deployment of the missile shield in Romania is similarly unimpacted.

Whether the merits of the treaty will be enough to satisfy Republicans who want to deal Obama a bloody nose on a top priority of his agenda remains to be seen. While the press briefing went on, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement that despite “a partisan breakdown in recent years,” the treaty poses an opportunity to “renew the Senate’s bipartisan tradition on arms control and approve ratification of this new treaty in 2010. I know that can happen.”

And so one of the things we’re looking at is is there flexibility in how we apply this law in terms of — well, let me give you an example. Do we need to be driven when the information, to take action on somebody if we get that information from somebody who may have vengeance in mind or blackmail or somebody who has been jilted….

In other words, if somebody is outed by a third party, we have to — does that force us to take an action? And I don’t know the answer to that and I don’t want to pretend to. But that’s the kind of thing we’re looking at to see if there’s at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed.

But doesn’t this kind of absurdity — we may have to discharge a soldier who’s being blackmailed — just argue for expediting the process of overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Gates acknowledged that the law is “very prescriptive.” Doesn’t that just mean it’s time to get out of the straightjacket and let everyone who wants to serve in the military serve?

Something else that happened yesterday: Army Lt. Dan Choi, who is openly gay, lost his first battle with a military administrative board to contest his discharge. Choi’s West Point classmate is an Army veteran of Iraq named Anthony Woods, who’s also openly gay and is running for Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher’s congressional seat in California. Woods released this statement:

Today’s decision only highlights the fact that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy” is undermining the strength of our military and the security of our nation.

Having served two combat tours in Iraq and brought all 81 of my soldiers home alive before being discharged under the policy last year, I understand what Lt. Choi is going through all too well.

Since 1993, the careers of tens of thousands of soldiers have ended prematurely because of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” — at a cost of more than $400 million to taxpayers, the safety of combat soldiers deprived of experienced leaders and specialists, and the readiness of a force already stretched thin by two wars and repeated, extended deployments. More than 70% of Americans support its repeal because Americans understand that in a time of war, America’s security is far more important than political expediency.

That seems like the most humane way to deal with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart but by standing together as free nations, as free people. I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together.

You wouldn’t have thought a 180-proof-liberalism speech would have embraced theater missile defense as a way of getting Russia to help the United States pressure Iran; and as a way of accelerating U.S.-Russian cooperation; and as a way of getting the Iranians to verifiably abandon all but peaceful nuclear energy, which the Obama administration committed itself to helping.

You might have expected a 180-proof-liberalism speech to have embraced John Bolton’s Proliferation Security Initiative (which, in fairness, liberal arms control experts have always embraced) in order to subsume it within a broader international framework. But still! This sounds like progressivism that invites conservatives to get on board. Especially all those conservatives who praise Ronald Reagan as a nuclear abolitionist.

“For the past 13 years, I have had the honor and privilege of serving you in Congress. Representing California’s 10th Congressional District always has been and remains – especially in these trying times – my first priority.”

“Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asked me to serve as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.”

“While her offer is both generous and flattering, I did not take the decision lightly. I accepted it after much soul searching and long discussions with my family and friends.”

“A.Q. Khan is one of the most dangerous men in the world because he has done more to increase the threat of nuclear terror than anyone in history. Now that a Pakistani court has all but freed him from house arrest, it is just common sense that our government, as well as the Pakistani government, does everything in its power to fully assess the damage he has caused to the international arms control regime.”

If Tauscher indeed gets the non-proliferation job, it’ll be worth watching to see if she convinces the administration to keep those strings attached to the additional aid to Pakistan that it’s considering.

Returning to dwell-deployment normalcy has long been a goal of Defense Secretary Bob Gates. In April 2007, owing to the troop surge in Iraq, Gates extended active-duty Army tours there to a 15-months-deployed-12-months-dwell schedule, and fell over himself apologizing for doing so in a press conference. At his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, he outlined plans for gradually increasing dwell time, as Military Times reported:

Gates also brought the committee good news for Army troops and families, providing for the first time a timeline for boosting rest and recuperation time back home. Soldiers now are deployed for 12 months and return home for 12 months; Gates said he expects to increase so-called “dwell time” at home for brigade combat teams to 15 months by October, to two years by October 2010 and 30 months by the end of fiscal 2011.

Tauscher’s bill would move faster than Gates’ schedule, but it includes waivers for the president and defense secretary to relax the restrictions if absolutely necessary. In 2007, she introduced a similar bill, but Republicans filibustered its Senate counterpart, introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), since passage of the bill would have cut the troop surge in Iraq short because of the increased dwell-time requirements.

What does Webb think of the current effort? His spokeswoman, Jessica Smith, told me:

Senator Webb remains deeply concerned about issues of individual and unit rotation—and the impact that multiple deployments with insufficient dwell time are having on our service members, especially those serving in the Army and Marine Corps. He believes it is imperative that our nation’s leaders provide proper stewardship of our men and women on the front lines. Sen Webb has consistently said that the availability of our troops should dictate the operational tempo and not the other way around. The Senator and our staff are considering legislative options in the new Congress.

Doesn’t sound particularly committal, but we’ll see what happens when Tauscher introduces the bill tomorrow.