C'mon, does every policy announcement from the current administration have to be treated as the dawning of a new era? While nonetheless a positive trend, this is just a continuation of an evolutionary process that recognizes the role of individuals and entities outside the government when it comes to US national security. It does not constitute a quantum leap.

The George H.W. Bush national security strategy of 1991 gave very slight attention to the private sector, mentioning it only in the contexts of providing for refugees and investments in the global economy and space. There is no mention of civil society.

However, the Clinton national security strategy of 1995 gave significant recognition to the functions of the private sector and civil society--and then expanded upon these themes each year through the final version released in December 2000 which mentioned important roles for the private sector and civil society 26 times.

For example, “…the Federal Government cannot protect critical infrastructures alone. The private sector owns and operates the vast majority of these infrastructures. Protecting critical infrastructure, therefore, requires the Federal Government to build partnerships with the private sector in all areas -- from business and higher education, to law enforcement, to R&D. The Secretary of Commerce and industry leaders -- mostly from Fortune 500 companies -- are leading the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security.”

The first George W. Bush national security strategy, released in September 2002, paid much less attention to these elements, only mentioning civil society in the context of encouraging it development in China and providing only brief highlights of private sector roles in Homeland Security and international economic development. However, the subsequent national security strategy provided at least as much attention to these aspects as did the Clinton administration.

The terms private sector and civil society may have been used a few less times than 27, but the Bush 2006 National Security Strategy extensively addressed the role of the private sector, private capital, and civil society across most of the range of security interests. Civil society was specifically mentioned as one of the tools that will be used to promote freedom and democracy. A major section began with the heading "Unleashing the Power of the Private Sector."

When it comes to Public Diplomacy, the 2006 strategy stated that the means used to advocate US policies would include: “actively engaging foreign audiences, expanding educational opportunities for Americans to learn about foreign languages and cultures and for foreign students and scholars to study in the United States; empowering the voices of our citizen ambassadors as well as those foreigners who share our commitment to a safer, more compassionate world; enlisting the support of the private sector; increasing our channels for dialogue with Muslim leaders and citizens...."

This part of the strategy has Anne-Marie Slaughter's fingerprints all over it. See, for example, this article she wrote for Foreign Affairs in 2009, before becoming director of Policy Planning at the State Dept.:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63722/anne-marie-slaughter/americas-edge

... she's hot.

Move over Carla Bruni.

Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy really jump-started the citizen diplomacy movement, the former with a conference that gave rise to organizations such as People to People International and the latter with Partners of the Americas. Furthermore, the U.S. Center for Citizen Diplomacy is holding a conference in November looking at ways to promote citizen participation and expand the influence of citizen diplomacy. The opportunity both for citizens and the national government is new, however, should the administration really support this movement to democratize (for better or for worse) U.S. foreign policy.

I'm all for the inclusion of more people from the private sector when it comes to finding innovative solutions to our problems and engaging the rest of the world. Especially when it comes to public diplomacy and new technology, people outside the government can bring expertise and a broader understanding of the situation, since that's where all the top talent goes. In addition, NGOs can often offer nuanced practical solutions for nation building, which can free up the military to provide the security necessary to achieve our goals in places like Afghanistan.
However, where is this going and what does it mean? I for one and still worried about a military-industrial complex that puts the cart before the horse when it comes procurement and government programs, Take cyber security for example. Yes private companies my have the experience and technical know-how to come up with better solutions. But when it comes time to implement them, who decides what and how much sway said company would have? Would it mean finding the lowest bidder, yet again? Would it mean further encouraging the type of inefficiency and bloated costs that are reminiscent of the F-35 program? What about energy economy? To me this might look like simply transferring our dependence on oil to a beast of different name and allowing new interests to fill replace old ones. Will corn farmers become the new Exxon? Will Symantec be the new Lockheed Martin? It certainly raises more questions than it answers. Or maybe I'm reading this wrong.

PS. Public Diplomacy. I once had to do a thesis that involved using public diplomacy to improve the US image abroad. Only, it was supposed to use modern social networking technology and it was to be a government program. I couldn't for the life of me think how any non-American would look at a .gov site and not think it was propaganda. If anyone has any ideas on how the US government could leverage Facebook or Youtube (seriously, that was the assignment) to their advantage I am dying to hear it.

The sour thought occurs that no elected official ever lost votes by lavishing praise on potential voters.

The Obama administration hasn't figured out quite how to "...engage vast numbers of private and non-profit actors to accomplish what are extremely complex tasks with enormous implications for national security," eh? I'd say that was a pretty good hunch. The administration is probably wrestling with how to engage smaller numbers of private sector actors to keep them from screwing things up for their country overseas, as well. Americans aren't the only people upset with Wall Street after the subprime panic, after all, and the dominant factor in American relations with one entire continent for the last twenty years has been the appetite of a minority of Americans for cocaine, heroin and other drugs.

Sure, foreign relations are about more than the Foreign Service. We can't forget soft power, especially since soft power can mean almost anything, or smart power, because who wants dumb power? The Obama administration agrees with all of that, which is fine, but it approached its NSS document as a chore to be gotten through. The whole document is shot through with praise of Good Things, not neglecting the general goodness and specific wonderful qualities of the American people. It's not impossible that somewhere in this silo of chaff are a few kernels of genuine policy initiative, but if the administration really knew what it wanted from the private sector we wouldn't be finding out about it in this document.

I'm thinking that the government will not want to foster partnerships with individuals who are too openly critical of its policies, must present a united, albeit diverse front. Come to think of it, that last bit sounds kind of Soviet, but oh well.

For example, imagine a special envoy Noam Chomsky, for example. Ain't gonna happen, guy can't even get on NPR, or perhaps a high level partnership for Jeremy Scahill and the DOD or State Dept. No, what this is, is the same old public-private status quo which has brought us no bid contracts, cronyism, revolving door bureaucratic/corporate types, and (as an American who has worked, studied overseas) a whole lot of grief for private individuals, who increasingly are linked to what their government does, as someone noted at this point everything the US does is seen as p.r. and for good reason. This, Petraeus' recent statement about increasing the battle-field from Somalia to Pakistan, Dubya's two presidential victories, and sundry other historical reasons, is why I tell people I am Canadian or Irish, depending on their ability to distinguish Westerners, when I go abroad. Soon, though, won't even be able to do the Canadian bit.