A Hypothetical American Invasion of Panama – Grand Strategy, Strategy, Operations, and Tactics: A National Security Briefing

Grand Strategy – The “Why” Behind a U.S. Invasion of Panama

The strategic rationale behind a U.S. invasion of Panama under President Trump would center around control of the Panama Canal, geopolitical dominance in Latin America, and economic leverage through one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints.

Control of the Panama Canal

The Panama Canal is a critical artery for global trade, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Gaining direct control of the canal would allow the U.S. to:

Dominate Global Trade Routes: Control over the canal means the U.S. could regulate the flow of goods, impose tariffs, and restrict access to adversaries like China.
Secure Strategic Maritime Access: The canal provides a rapid transit point for U.S. naval forces between the Atlantic and Pacific, enhancing global power projection.
Limit Chinese Influence: China has invested heavily in Panama’s infrastructure and maintains strong economic ties with the country. U.S. control would eliminate China’s foothold in the region.

Geopolitical Influence in Latin America

A U.S. invasion would signal a return to interventionist policies in Latin America, reinforcing the Monroe Doctrine and deterring other powers from establishing influence in the Western Hemisphere. It would also serve as a warning to leftist governments in the region and a demonstration of U.S. military capability.

Economic Interests
Beyond the canal, Panama’s growing financial sector, offshore banking, and shipping industry are significant. U.S. control would allow direct oversight of these economic assets, disrupting illicit financial flows and benefiting American corporations.

Domestic Political Considerations
For President Trump, an invasion could rally domestic support by projecting strength, distracting from domestic political challenges, and reviving nationalist sentiments similar to past U.S. interventions in Latin America.

Challenges and Risks at the Grand Strategic Level

International Backlash: A unilateral invasion would draw global condemnation, particularly from Latin American neighbors, the United Nations, and major powers like China and the EU.
Regional Insurgency: Latin America has a history of armed insurgencies. A prolonged occupation could trigger widespread resistance, supported by external actors like Cuba, Venezuela, and even China.
Economic Disruption: Global trade would be severely affected during the invasion and subsequent occupation, potentially harming U.S. economic interests and international standing.
U.S. Military Overstretch: With existing commitments worldwide, sustaining a prolonged occupation in Panama could strain U.S. military resources and readiness.

This grand strategic overview sets the foundation for the subsequent sections, detailing how the U.S. would plan, execute, and sustain an invasion of Panama, along with the potential consequences.

Strategy – Crafting the Blueprint for a U.S. Invasion of Panama

Military strategy outlines the overarching plan for achieving strategic objectives through coordinated military, political, and economic actions. A U.S. invasion of Panama would require swift military dominance, control of critical infrastructure, and rapid neutralization of Panamanian forces to avoid prolonged conflict and international backlash.

Diplomatic and Political Strategy

Before initiating military action, the U.S. would likely engage in a series of diplomatic and political maneuvers aimed at isolating Panama, reducing international resistance, and justifying intervention.

Political Destabilization: The U.S. could exploit existing political divisions within Panama, supporting opposition parties and dissidents to undermine the government’s legitimacy.
Economic Pressure: Sanctions targeting Panama’s banking sector, shipping industry, and foreign investments would weaken the country’s economy, creating internal pressure for regime change.
Regional Alliances: The U.S. might seek tacit support from regional allies such as Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico, offering economic incentives and military cooperation in exchange for logistical support or neutrality during the invasion.

Military Strategy

The military strategy for a U.S. invasion of Panama would focus on rapid, overwhelming force to seize key objectives, secure the Panama Canal, and prevent external intervention. Key strategic options might include:

Lightning Strike Invasion: A rapid airborne and amphibious assault to seize the canal, neutralize Panamanian military installations, and secure major cities within days, minimizing the window for international reaction.
Decapitation of Leadership: Targeting Panama’s political and military leadership through precision strikes, special operations raids, and cyber warfare to disrupt command and control.
Information Warfare: A coordinated propaganda campaign would justify the invasion to both domestic and international audiences, highlighting alleged threats, human rights abuses, or corruption within Panama’s government.

Hybrid Warfare Approach

Given Panama’s complex political landscape and urban environment, the U.S. might employ hybrid warfare tactics, blending conventional military operations with cyber warfare, covert actions, and psychological operations. This could include:

Cyber Attacks: Disabling Panamanian military communications, financial networks, and critical infrastructure prior to the invasion.
Covert Operations: Deploying special forces to sabotage military facilities, gather intelligence, and prepare the battlefield.
Economic Disruption: Freezing Panamanian assets, disrupting maritime traffic through the canal, and imposing economic sanctions.

Panama’s Strategic Response

Panama’s military capabilities are limited, but strategic responses could include:

Defensive Strongholds: Concentrating defenses around the Panama Canal, using urban terrain for guerrilla warfare, and sabotaging critical infrastructure to hinder U.S. operations.
Asymmetric Warfare: Employing hit-and-run tactics, ambushes, and IEDs, while leveraging local knowledge of terrain to harass U.S. forces.
International Appeals: Rallying support from Latin American nations, China, and the United Nations for economic sanctions and political pressure on the U.S.

Strategic Risks for the U.S.

Regional Instability: An invasion could trigger anti-U.S. sentiment across Latin America, fostering insurgencies and destabilizing allied governments.
Economic Fallout: Disruptions to the Panama Canal would impact global trade, harming U.S. economic interests and international relations.
Prolonged Occupation: Sustaining control over Panama, especially the canal, would require significant military resources and could result in a costly, prolonged insurgency.

This strategic blueprint lays the groundwork for operational planning, detailing how U.S. forces would be deployed, sustained, and coordinated during an invasion of Panama.

Operational Planning – Executing the U.S. Invasion of Panama

Operational planning transforms strategic objectives into concrete military actions, detailing force deployment, logistics, and coordination across land, sea, and air. A U.S. invasion of Panama would prioritize rapid deployment, control of key infrastructure, and neutralization of Panamanian forces to ensure swift victory and minimal disruption to the Panama Canal.

Key Operational Objectives

Seize the Panama Canal:
- Canal Zone Control: Secure the Panama Canal’s locks, maintenance facilities, and administrative buildings within the first 48 hours.
- Naval and Air Dominance: Establish immediate control over the surrounding waters and airspace to prevent sabotage or reinforcement.
Neutralize Panamanian Military Forces:
- Panama’s military is small and lightly equipped, but rapid strikes on barracks, airfields, and command centers would prevent organized resistance.
Control Major Urban Centers:
- Capture Panama City, Colón, and Balboa, ensuring control of political, economic, and transportation hubs.

Forces and Resources Deployed

U.S. Navy

Fourth Fleet (Southern Command):
- 1x Amphibious Ready Group (USS Kearsarge) with Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).
- 2x Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for naval gunfire support and missile strikes.
- 1x Virginia-class attack submarine for reconnaissance and coastal interdiction.

U.S. Air Force

2x squadrons of F-22 Raptors for air superiority.
3x squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles for ground attack missions.
1x squadron of AC-130 gunships for urban close air support.
1x squadron of MQ-9 Reaper drones for ISR and precision strikes.
C-17 Globemaster and C-130J Hercules for troop and equipment transport from bases in Florida and Puerto Rico.

U.S. Army

82nd Airborne Division (8,000 paratroopers) for rapid airborne assault on critical targets.
101st Airborne Division (10,000 troops) for air assault operations and occupation duties.
1x Armored Brigade Combat Team (4,000 troops) equipped with M1A2 Abrams tanks and Bradley IFVs.

U.S. Marine Corps

Marine Expeditionary Unit (2,200 troops) for amphibious landings near Colón and Panama City.

U.S. Special Operations Forces

Navy SEAL teams to secure coastal facilities and sabotage Panamanian defenses.
Delta Force and Green Berets for high-value target raids and coordination with local informants.

Logistics and Supply Chain Considerations

Proximity Advantage: Panama’s proximity to the U.S. mainland ensures short supply lines. Bases in Florida, Puerto Rico, and Guantanamo Bay provide rapid resupply and reinforcement capabilities.
Infrastructure Dependency: Panama’s existing infrastructure, including ports, airports, and the canal, would be used to support U.S. operations, though sabotage by retreating Panamanian forces is a risk.

Phases of the Operational Campaign

Phase 1: Pre-Invasion Preparations
- Cyber attacks on Panamanian communications and power grids.
- Deployment of reconnaissance drones and naval assets for intelligence gathering.
- Infiltration by Special Forces to disable defenses and gather intel.
Phase 2: Initial Invasion
- Airborne Assault: 82nd Airborne captures Tocumen International Airport and key government buildings in Panama City.
- Amphibious Landings: Marines secure Colón and Balboa, cutting off canal access and neutralizing coastal defenses.
- Naval and Air Superiority: U.S. Navy establishes blockade, while Air Force eliminates Panamanian air defenses.
Phase 3: Consolidation and Expansion
- Establishment of military bases in Panama City, Colón, and along the canal.
- Deployment of additional Army units for counterinsurgency operations in rural areas.
Phase 4: Defense Against Counterattacks
- Rapid response units deployed to counter guerrilla attacks and sabotage attempts.
- Fortification of key infrastructure, including canal locks, ports, and airfields.

Operational Risks and Challenges

Urban Combat in Panama City: Narrow streets, dense population, and civilian presence complicate military operations, increasing the risk of collateral damage and insurgent cover.
Insurgency and Guerrilla Warfare: Rural jungles provide cover for insurgents, requiring extensive counterinsurgency operations.
Economic and Political Fallout: Disruptions to canal operations and international condemnation could strain U.S. economic and diplomatic standing.

This operational framework sets the stage for detailed tactical engagements, highlighting how U.S. forces would conduct specific battles, secure key objectives, and counter Panamanian resistance.

Tactical Engagements – On the Ground in Panama

Tactical engagements represent the execution of operational plans through specific battles, skirmishes, and military maneuvers. Panama’s urban centers, dense jungles, and critical canal infrastructure would shape tactical decisions, requiring adaptable, multi-domain operations by U.S. forces.

Initial Tactical Movements

Airborne Assault on Panama City:
- The 82nd Airborne Division would conduct a simultaneous nighttime drop on Tocumen International Airport and the Presidential Palace. Paratroopers, equipped with night vision and light armor, would secure key government buildings, control communications infrastructure, and capture or eliminate Panamanian leadership.
- Delta Force teams would launch raids on military command centers, disabling Panama’s chain of command within the first 24 hours.
Amphibious Landings on Colón and Balboa:
- U.S. Marines, launched from amphibious ships off both coasts, would storm Colón (near the Atlantic entrance of the canal) and Balboa (at the Pacific entrance). Using hovercrafts, amphibious assault vehicles, and CH-53 helicopters, Marines would neutralize coastal defenses and secure the canal locks.
Naval and Air Superiority Operations:
- The U.S. Navy’s destroyers would conduct shore bombardments, targeting military barracks and defensive positions.
- F-22 Raptors would patrol the skies, eliminating Panama’s limited air force, while MQ-9 Reapers and AC-130 gunships provide ISR and close air support for ground troops.

Urban Combat in Panama City

Panama City’s dense urban environment poses significant challenges, necessitating precise, coordinated tactics:

Building-by-Building Clearing: U.S. infantry units, supported by armored vehicles and drones, would systematically clear government buildings, commercial centers, and residential areas to eliminate resistance.
Minimizing Collateral Damage: Tactical operations would emphasize precision to avoid civilian casualties and prevent further international backlash.
Counter-Sniper Operations: Snipers from U.S. Special Forces would eliminate enemy sharpshooters, while recon teams map hostile positions in real-time.

Securing the Panama Canal

Rapid Canal Lock Seizure: Marine units would secure each lock along the canal, including Gatun, Miraflores, and Pedro Miguel, preventing sabotage by Panamanian forces.
Anti-Sabotage Operations: U.S. Navy SEALs and combat engineers would sweep the canal for explosives, dismantle sabotage devices, and secure control stations.
Naval Patrols: Littoral combat ships and Coast Guard vessels would patrol the canal’s waters, preventing infiltration by insurgent forces or foreign actors.

Jungle Warfare and Rural Operations

Jungle Patrols: The 101st Airborne and 10th Mountain Division would conduct long-range patrols in the Darién Gap and other rural areas, using helicopters, UAVs, and ground sensors to detect insurgent movements.
Rapid Reaction Forces: Small, highly mobile units equipped with MRAPs and light armored vehicles would respond to insurgent attacks, ambushes, and sabotage attempts.
Special Operations Raids: Green Berets and Navy SEALs would conduct night raids on insurgent camps, weapons caches, and supply lines, leveraging local informants and advanced surveillance technology.

Naval and Air Tactical Operations

Maritime Control: U.S. Navy destroyers and submarines would enforce a blockade, intercepting arms shipments and foreign reinforcements.
Airborne ISR: Continuous drone patrols would provide intelligence on enemy movements, while F-15E Strike Eagles conduct precision strikes on insurgent hideouts and supply routes.
Close Air Support: AC-130 gunships would provide overwatch for ground forces, delivering pinpoint fire support in both urban and jungle environments.

Potential Panamanian Resistance Tactics

Urban Guerrilla Warfare: Panamanian forces could adopt guerrilla tactics in Panama City, using civilians as cover, employing IEDs, and conducting hit-and-run attacks on U.S. patrols.
Sabotage of the Canal: Retreating forces may attempt to damage canal locks, sink ships in the channel, or disable control systems to disrupt U.S. operations.
Jungle Insurgency: Rural insurgents, supported by foreign powers or regional allies, could utilize Panama’s dense jungles for ambushes, supply raids, and sabotage operations.

Tactical Risks and Mitigation

High Civilian Casualties Risk: Strict rules of engagement and precision weaponry would be essential to prevent collateral damage and maintain international legitimacy.
Logistical Vulnerabilities: U.S. forces would establish supply depots and forward operating bases across Panama, using aerial resupply and naval convoys to sustain operations.
Prolonged Insurgency Threat: Continuous counterinsurgency training, local militia support, and intelligence operations would be critical to suppressing resistance and securing U.S. control.

This tactical analysis illustrates how U.S. forces would conduct combat operations, secure key objectives, and manage resistance in Panama. The next section explores the occupation phase, including governance, counterinsurgency efforts, and sustainability challenges.

Sustaining the Occupation – Post-Invasion Challenges and Governance

Once U.S. forces have seized Panama, the challenges of occupation, governance, and counterinsurgency would become paramount. Controlling the Panama Canal, suppressing resistance, and maintaining international legitimacy would require sustained military, political, and economic efforts.

Establishing Governance and Control

Military Administration: In the immediate aftermath, Panama would be placed under U.S. military administration. SOUTHCOM would oversee security operations, law enforcement, and critical infrastructure management.
Civilian Governance Transition: The U.S. would likely install a provisional government composed of Panamanian opposition figures sympathetic to American interests, while dismantling the existing administration and security apparatus.
Economic Control: U.S. financial institutions would assume control over Panama’s banking sector, shipping industry, and canal operations, ensuring U.S. oversight of trade flows and financial transactions.

Military Presence and Security Operations

Permanent Military Bases: U.S. bases would be established in Panama City, Colón, and along the canal, housing rapid reaction forces, surveillance systems, and logistics hubs.
Counterinsurgency Operations: U.S. Army units, supported by Special Forces, would conduct regular patrols, establish checkpoints, and carry out targeted operations against insurgent cells.
Special Operations Deployments: SEAL teams and Green Berets would remain active, conducting high-value target raids, disrupting insurgent supply lines, and training local militias.

Logistical Sustainment

Proximity Advantage: Panama’s close proximity to the U.S. ensures relatively easy supply routes via naval convoys, airlift operations, and land routes through Central America.
Infrastructure Utilization: The Panama Canal’s infrastructure, ports, and airports would be leveraged for military logistics, though initial repairs and fortifications would be necessary.
Technological Integration: Advanced surveillance systems, UAV patrols, and secure communications networks would be essential for operational coordination and intelligence gathering.

International and Domestic Backlash

Latin American Opposition: U.S. intervention would likely ignite anti-American sentiment across Latin America, prompting protests, diplomatic condemnations, and potential support for Panamanian insurgents from countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.
Global Condemnation: The United Nations and international community would likely denounce the invasion, with potential sanctions, trade restrictions, and legal challenges in international courts.
U.S. Domestic Response: While some domestic factions might support the invasion for its strategic and economic benefits, others would criticize the intervention’s legality, human cost, and economic burden, potentially fueling political opposition and civil unrest.

Potential for Prolonged Insurgency

Panamanian Resistance: An insurgency could rapidly emerge, drawing from disbanded military personnel, local nationalists, and criminal organizations, employing guerrilla tactics, sabotage, and propaganda warfare.
Regional Support for Insurgents: Latin American nations hostile to U.S. influence might covertly supply weapons, funding, and intelligence to Panamanian insurgents, turning the occupation into a protracted, asymmetric conflict.
Urban and Jungle Warfare: Insurgent forces would exploit urban centers for cover and jungles for ambushes, making counterinsurgency operations complex and resource-intensive.

Economic and Resource Exploitation

Panama Canal Revenues: U.S. control of the canal would generate significant revenues through tolls, which could offset the costs of occupation but would also disrupt global shipping, particularly for countries dependent on the canal.
Infrastructure Investment: U.S. corporations would likely invest in expanding and modernizing the canal and Panama’s infrastructure, benefiting economically but also facing resistance from local populations.
Corruption and Crime: The occupation would likely face challenges from organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption, further complicating governance and security.

Exit Strategy and Long-Term Viability

Permanent U.S. Presence: A long-term U.S. military presence could be established, similar to historical bases in Panama prior to the canal handover in 1999, ensuring American control of the canal and regional influence.
Negotiated Withdrawal: If occupation proves too costly, the U.S. might seek a negotiated withdrawal, retaining control over the canal through treaties while ceding governance to a compliant Panamanian government.
Risk of Stalemate: Prolonged insurgency, economic strain, and international pressure could lead to a stalemate, with U.S. forces entrenched in an unwinnable conflict, similar to past counterinsurgency struggles in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

This section underscores the immense challenges associated with occupying Panama, managing local and international resistance, and sustaining military and economic control. The final section will explore long-term geopolitical implications, potential outcomes, and strategic lessons from this hypothetical scenario.

Long-Term Geopolitical Implications and Strategic Lessons

A U.S. invasion of Panama would have profound and lasting impacts on global geopolitics, regional stability, and U.S. military strategy. This section explores the potential long-term outcomes, lessons learned, and broader consequences of such an intervention.

Global Geopolitical Impact

Destabilization of Latin America: A U.S. invasion could trigger widespread instability across Latin America, emboldening anti-U.S. movements, strengthening leftist governments, and fostering new insurgencies, particularly in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua.
China and Russia’s Response: Both powers would likely view the invasion as a direct challenge to their influence in Latin America. China, with its economic investments in Panama, might retaliate through economic measures, while Russia could increase military support to anti-U.S. regimes in the region.
Strained U.S. Alliances: Traditional U.S. allies in Europe and Asia might condemn the invasion, leading to diplomatic rifts, reduced military cooperation, and potential economic sanctions against the U.S.

Economic Consequences

Disruption of Global Trade: Temporary disruptions to the Panama Canal’s operations during the invasion and occupation could severely impact global supply chains, particularly for goods moving between Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
Long-Term Economic Control: U.S. control over the canal would provide significant economic leverage, allowing the imposition of tariffs, toll increases, and access restrictions, potentially boosting U.S. economic influence but also triggering retaliatory measures from affected countries.
Occupation Costs vs. Economic Gains: While canal revenues could provide financial benefits, the costs of military occupation, counterinsurgency operations, and international sanctions might outweigh economic gains in the long term.

Military and Strategic Lessons

Urban and Jungle Warfare Adaptations: The conflict would highlight the challenges of conducting military operations in dense urban environments and remote jungles, leading to tactical and technological adaptations in U.S. military doctrine.
Counterinsurgency Doctrine Reevaluation: Lessons from Panama’s insurgency would force the U.S. to reassess its counterinsurgency strategies, particularly in managing local populations, securing critical infrastructure, and countering asymmetric threats.
Hybrid Warfare Integration: The use of cyber warfare, economic sanctions, and information operations alongside conventional military force would set a precedent for future U.S. military interventions.

Potential Long-Term Outcomes

Permanent U.S. Canal Control: The U.S. might establish a long-term military and economic presence in Panama, ensuring control over the canal and regional influence but facing continuous local resistance and international scrutiny.
Panamanian Insurgency and Regional Spillover: A prolonged insurgency in Panama could destabilize neighboring countries, leading to cross-border violence, refugee flows, and regional conflict.
U.S. Military Overstretch: Sustaining an occupation in Panama, alongside existing global commitments, could strain U.S. military resources, readiness, and morale, impacting long-term strategic capabilities.
Revival of the Monroe Doctrine: The invasion could mark a return to aggressive U.S. interventionism in Latin America, reinforcing the Monroe Doctrine but also alienating regional partners and fostering anti-American sentiment.

Strategic Recommendations for Future Conflicts

Invest in Regional Partnerships: Strengthening alliances with Latin American countries through economic aid, military cooperation, and diplomatic engagement would be crucial to prevent future conflicts.
Enhance Counterinsurgency Capabilities: Developing advanced counterinsurgency tactics, technology, and training programs would be essential for managing post-invasion resistance.
Prioritize Cyber and Hybrid Warfare: Integrating cyber operations, economic tools, and information warfare into military planning would enhance U.S. strategic flexibility and effectiveness.

Conclusion

A U.S. invasion of Panama under President Trump, while speculative, highlights the complex interplay of military operations, geopolitical consequences, and economic realities in modern warfare. Control of the Panama Canal would provide strategic and economic advantages but at significant human, financial, and diplomatic costs. The lessons learned from such a conflict would shape U.S. military and foreign policy for decades, underscoring the importance of careful planning, regional engagement, and adaptive military strategies in future interventions.

Order of Battle for U.S. Invasion of Panama Scenario

Phase 1: Invasion Phase – Order of Battle

United States Armed Forces

U.S. Navy (Maritime Operations)

Fourth Fleet (Southern Command):
- 1x Amphibious Ready Group (USS Kearsarge) with Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU).
- 2x Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for naval gunfire support, missile strikes, and air defense.
- 1x Virginia-class attack submarine for intelligence gathering, blockade enforcement, and precision strikes.

U.S. Air Force (Air Superiority and Strategic Strikes)

2x squadrons of F-22 Raptors (24 aircraft total) for air dominance.
3x squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles (48 aircraft total) for ground strikes and close air support.
1x squadron of AC-130 gunships for night operations and urban close air support.
1x squadron of MQ-9 Reaper drones for ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) and precision strikes.
C-17 Globemaster III and C-130J Super Hercules for rapid troop and equipment transport.

U.S. Army (Ground Invasion Forces)

82nd Airborne Division (~8,000 paratroopers) for airborne assaults on key targets in Panama City and Colón.
101st Airborne Division (~10,000 troops) for air assault operations, urban combat, and securing the canal.
1x Armored Brigade Combat Team (~4,000 troops) with M1A2 Abrams tanks, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, and artillery support.

U.S. Marine Corps

1x Marine Expeditionary Unit (2,200 Marines) with amphibious assault vehicles, Ospreys, and rotary-wing support for landings near the Panama Canal entrances.

U.S. Special Operations Forces

Navy SEAL teams for coastal infiltration, sabotage of Panamanian defenses, and canal security.
Delta Force and Green Berets for decapitation strikes on Panamanian leadership, counterinsurgency preparations, and intelligence gathering.

Panamanian Defense Forces

National Aeronaval Service (SENAN)

4x patrol boats for coastal defense and surveillance.
1x Cessna aircraft squadron for reconnaissance and light attack (8-10 aircraft).

National Border Service (SENAFRONT)

4,000 personnel trained in jungle warfare, deployed along the Darién Gap and rural regions.

Panamanian Public Forces (PPF)

12,000 personnel including infantry, logistics, and law enforcement units, concentrated in Panama City and along the canal zone.
Light armored vehicles, small arms, and limited artillery, with defensive strongholds in urban areas.

Casualty and Material Loss Estimates (Invasion Phase)

U.S. Forces:

Estimated casualties: ~500-800 (KIA, WIA, MIA) due to urban combat, IEDs, and jungle ambushes.
Material losses: 3-5 aircraft (due to anti-aircraft fire and environmental hazards), 1-2 naval vessels damaged, minor ground vehicle losses.

Panamanian Forces:

Estimated casualties: ~3,000-4,000 (KIA, WIA, POW).
Material losses: Most naval assets destroyed, limited air assets neutralized, infrastructure (ports, airports, military bases) heavily damaged.

Phase 2: Insurgency/Occupation Phase – Order of Battle

As the conflict transitions to a prolonged insurgency and occupation phase, U.S. forces would focus on counterinsurgency operations, while Panamanian resistance, supported by regional actors, would rely on guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and asymmetric tactics.

United States Armed Forces (Occupation Phase)

U.S. Army

101st Airborne Division (~8,000 troops post-invasion) for counterinsurgency operations in rural areas and jungle terrain.
173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (~4,000 troops) for rapid response to insurgent attacks and urban security.
1x Stryker Brigade Combat Team (~4,500 troops) for mobile patrols, quick reaction missions, and securing logistics routes.

U.S. Marine Corps

1x Marine Expeditionary Unit (~2,000 Marines) stationed near the Panama Canal for rapid reinforcement and coastal security.

U.S. Special Operations Forces

Green Berets for training Panamanian collaborators, gathering intelligence, and conducting night raids on insurgent strongholds.
Navy SEAL teams for high-value target elimination, counter-sabotage operations, and maritime security.

U.S. Air Force

Persistent drone operations with MQ-9 Reapers for surveillance and strike missions.
2x squadrons of A-10 Thunderbolt IIs for jungle and urban close air support.
AC-130 gunships for overwatch during nighttime counterinsurgency operations.

Panamanian Insurgents and Regional Support

Panamanian Insurgent Forces

Estimated 5,000-8,000 insurgents drawn from disbanded security forces, local militants, and criminal organizations, operating in urban centers and the Darién jungle.
Armed with small arms, IEDs, RPGs, and light anti-tank weapons supplied covertly by regional actors (e.g., Venezuela, Cuba).

Regional Support

Venezuelan logistical support, including arms shipments through Colombia’s remote regions.
Cuban advisors providing insurgent training, communication networks, and propaganda assistance.
Potential covert funding and support from China and Russia, including cyber operations targeting U.S. logistics and intelligence infrastructure.

Casualty and Material Loss Estimates (Insurgency/Occupation Phase)

U.S. Forces:

Estimated casualties (12-18 months): ~3,500-5,000 (KIA, WIA, PTSD-related discharges).
Material losses: 10-15 ground vehicles lost to IEDs and ambushes, 5-7 aircraft damaged or destroyed, including drones and helicopters.
Estimated occupation costs: $50-80 billion annually, with escalating costs as insurgency persists.

Panamanian Insurgents:

Estimated casualties: ~4,000-6,000 insurgents killed, captured, or incapacitated.
Material losses: Continuous depletion of weapons and supplies, replenished through regional black markets and foreign support.

Regional Actors:

Potential losses limited to covert operatives, logistical assets, and financial resources, with minimal direct involvement to avoid open conflict with the U.S.

This order of battle highlights the significant military resources, human costs, and logistical challenges associated with a U.S. invasion and occupation of Panama. A prolonged insurgency, supported by regional powers, would strain U.S. forces and resources, echoing historical counterinsurgency struggles in hostile environments.