The study of multinational military interventions highlights the importance of four major factors to account for combat participation in US-led coalitions: threat perceptions, alliance considerations, domestic politics, and strategic culture. The latter, however, has been overlooked or uncorroborated by major cross-national accounts of coalition warfare. Building on the fourth generation of scholars working on strategic culture as well as legislative studies scholarship, we propose and put to empirical test a conceptualization of strategic culture that focuses on force conceptions, foreign policy roles, and domestic contestation of self-representations. Through a longitudinal and systematic qualitative content analysis of parliamentary debates that took place in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia from August 2014 to December 2017, the article finds that force conception and domestic contestation are best associated with variation in allied participation in US-led combat operations. In contrast, foreign policy roles are not found to shed light on allied military participation. We conclude that more cross-national and within-case analyses of strategic culture hold the potential to contribute to our understanding of the peculiarities of coalition operations.

中文翻译：

---

有争议的战略文化：盎格鲁圈参与反伊斯兰国联盟

对多国军事干预的研究强调了四个主要因素对美国领导的联盟参与战斗的重要性：威胁认知、联盟考虑、国内政治和战略文化。然而，后者被主要的跨国联合战争记述所忽视或未得到证实。基于从事战略文化和立法研究学术研究的第四代学者，我们提出并实证检验了战略文化的概念化，该概念化侧重于力量概念、外交政策角色和国内自我陈述的竞争。通过对 2014 年 8 月至 2017 年 12 月在英国、加拿大和澳大利亚举行的议会辩论进行纵向和系统的定性内容分析，该文章发现，部队概念和国内竞争与盟军参与美国领导的作战行动的变化最为相关。相比之下，没有发现外交政策角色可以阐明盟军的军事参与。我们的结论是，对战略文化进行更多的跨国和案例内分析有可能有助于我们理解联盟行动的特点。