The basic issue, TNG, is you've created a lengthy document to discuss the accountability of the least accountable people in politics. You have a bunch of headings earnestly discussing your perception of assorted actions or policies that were hatched with less deliberation by the instigator than the observers. You are also attempting to analyze a state of affairs as ephemeral as a cloud on the horizon. Finally, you are reducing numerous complex situations to a gut check, effectively deprecating the positions of policy experts to a man-on-the-street interview. Like this:

I hear from some in the know that the China influence is not as dire as is being sold to us. Did Carter fuck up by relinquishing control? Sure. But that’s our fault, not Panama’s. Not a fan of how Trump is approaching this.

The issue starts and ends with international sovereignty, which is a fancy way of saying "if you pick on every little country that doesn't do what you want you will quickly find yourself picking on every little country." You may have heard the phrase "exhorbitant privilege" bandied about by wonks and talking heads. It's an elliptical way of saying that the United States runs the world, unquestionably, with no serious challenges, and has done since 1945. You can use a carrot, you can use a stick, you can use a carrot and a stick and the carrot/stick ratio is foreign policy in a nutshell. It's important for purposes of domestic politics to act like there are serious challenges to this because everyone has an opinion about carrot sticks but the US runs the world and it's not close.

The way we chose to run it in the '60s had a lot of stick in it, particularly in Latin America. America's "stick first" approach had led to our failures in the Vietnam War, the collapse of Cambodia, the collapse of Iran and secret wars in Laos. Carter, who ran on being Not Nixon, decided to turn the corner. Panama, as a reminder, had become an armed camp during the Vietnam War, with American troops firing into Panamanian crowds. Unwinding the Panama Canal treaty by 1999 matched Britain's unwinding of Hong Kong by 1997, thereby giving China a reason for continued rapprochement with the Western powers. The alternative could easily have been another Suez Crisis, which ultimately led to the Iron Curtain but it wasn't.

There's an easy five doctoral theses in there but you've boiled it down to "Did Carter fuck up" as if the geopolitics of Panama are restricted to Panama. Ask the Iranians why they restarted their nuclear program and they'll tell you: there were three countries named as the "Axis of Evil" and the one furthest from nukes is now a vassal state. The State Department isn't a rec center, it's a vital arm of government dedicated to the distribution of carrots. The most important thing about Trump is he's convinced you that a gut check on Panama is a valid way to decide where to place your support.

THIS IS THE WAY POPULISM WORKS. It's always - ALWAYS - the guys going "it's complicated" who are lined up and shot first. Any good demagogue knows that you don't get your way by debating, you get it through unilateral decisions... and that if there's no debate, there's no blowback for walking back your decisions. Let's talk tariffs -

Have not been concerned. Have always assumed they were a negotiating tool. Did they work as a negotiating tool? Yet to be seen.

Trump managed to freak out every fund manager and retail investor by YOLOing into round numbers, only to walk everything back within six hours when Mexico and Canada promised to keep doing the exact same shit they'd been doing for 20 years. When Mexico says 'sure, we'll put ten thousand troops on the border, we've had fifteen there for years' we look like Mexico's bitch to anyone with a cursory understanding of border controls or foreign policy. This is the entire world going "what a terrible idea," Trump tweeting some dumb shit, every market going "what a terrible idea" and Trump going "I am a very stable genius." There's no policy to wargame here, no chin-stroking discussions, just gut-checks by demagogues and their flock.

They're doing what they can get away with, that benefits them personally, with no greater vision beyond that. By regarding it any other way you're falling into the trap. The fact of the matter is, every expert on every subject you've chosen disagrees with the choices being made but the whole game is to make you think those experts are safe to ignore.

They're not.