Trump outrage or shrewd maneuvering?

With his inauguration less than two weeks away, President-elect Donald Trump has sparked both outrage and debate with a series of eyebrow-raising comments on foreign policy, both in social media posts and in remarks at a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Most notably, he has suggested that the United States should buy or take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the Gulf of America, and that Canada should become a part of the United States. Is this simply posturing and attention-seeking? Is it an indication of an actual, and troubling, might-makes-right direction in U.S. foreign policy? Or, as some supporters are suggesting, is Trump’s over-the-top rhetoric a shrewd move that will give him leverage to pursue valid policy objectives in far less extreme ways?

Some conservative commentators have defended the proposed acquisition of Greenland, currently a self-governing territory of Denmark, as anything but a wild-eyed fantasy. They point out that the idea was also secretly floated by then-President Harry Truman in 1946, on the grounds that the arctic island was a key strategic asset in the Cold War. Trump argues that it remains a vital asset to our national security.

But there is a key difference. In the 1940s, negotiations over Greenland were resolved by a bilateral agreement that allowed the U.S. access to the island. Denmark was also one of the founding members of NATO in 1949. Today, Thule Air Force Base on the northwest side of Greenland still hosts U.S. ballistic missiles. It’s unclear what significant advantages actual ownership of Greenland would confer.

There’s a far stronger case for a U.S. claim to the Panama Canal, which was built by U.S. engineers after Panama gained independence from Colombia with U.S. help in 1903 and to which the U.S. had rights in perpetuity under the original U.S.-Panama treaty. The treaty transferring control to Panama, finalized in 1977, was a result of a surge in anti-colonialist sentiment. While Trump’s claim that the Chinese military is currently "operating" the canal is untrue, mainstream analysts acknowledge the problem of China’s presence. Several key Panamanian seaports are operated by a Hong Kong-based company — now under Chinese control.

On Thursday, a Republican-backed Panama Canal Repurchase Act was introduced in the House of Representatives, citing Chinese interests in the canal, and China’s potential ability to hamper vital traffic, as a reason for the move. Panama adamantly opposes a repurchase. But the bill could be used as a starting point for changes that would strengthen U.S. and global security. It is worth noting that the current treaty gives the U.S. a right to take steps, including "use of military force," if the canal’s operations are interfered with.

Should Trump be credited with bringing up an important national security issue? The problem is that he is approaching it in a way suggestive of a swaggering and ego-driven empire, not a responsible power. The entirely unrelated Greenland proposal makes the Panama Canal repurchase look like an expansionist quest — especially since Trump has ominously refused to rule out the use of military force. The "Gulf of America" gimmick is reminiscent of Trump’s penchant for slapping his name on all his properties. The grandstanding about annexing Canada seems to be primarily an exercise in humiliating our northern neighbor.

If this past week is any indication, foreign policy under the next administration will be at constant risk of turmoil that can compromise even positive goals. That’s a dangerous place for a superpower.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.