> I think their point was a military incursion is just as likely in Panama as Canada Greenland and Gaza. Can you honestly picture boots on the ground in any one of these?
Military is irrelevant here. You don't need boots on the ground to throw a country into chaos. Did Russia and China send soldiers on American soil to make the US as unstable as it is right now (...leading to people's desires to seek a more stable country)?
The concern was regarding stability, healthcare, etc. which means economic and political stability. How stable do you think Panama would be in (say) an economic war with the US that is focused on controlling their canal? What if the US decides to covertly influence their government (or worse)?
But to answer your question directly anyway: for Canada he specifically said "economic force", not military. For Gaza, he said Israel would handle the military aspect and hand it over. For Greenland, the military is already there, but also it's not like they would meet any resistance via combat there. For Panama... it seems unlikely but it's also hard to put anything past him. Not because of his word, but because his actions are just so unpredictable.