Current research highlights that ideology decisively affects political contestation concerning peace and security operations in European countries. In particular, recent studies suggest that party preferences on this issue follow a curvilinear distribution along the left-right axis, delineating a conflict between moderate and extreme parties. However, the impact of this cleavage on the use of strategic narratives to either support or criticize these missions requires more attention. This article aims to fill this gap by employing seeded latent Dirichlet allocation, a semi-supervised automated text analysis method, to analyze parliamentary debates on Italy's most significant troop deployments between 1994 and 2013. We expect to find that while moderates express a supportive narrative aimed at justifying the use of force, extremists attempt to delegitimize military interventions. Accordingly, we hypothesize that moderate parties emphasize more on the multilateral and humanitarian framework of a mission, while extremist parties focus more on its military means. The empirical findings largely confirm our hypotheses. By means of its method and results, the article contributes both empirically and methodologically to the debate on the party politics of military interventions in Europe.

中文翻译：

---

坚定的温和派和不坚定的极端分子：意识形态倾向和政党对意大利军事干预的叙述

目前的研究强调，意识形态对欧洲国家和平与安全行动的政治争论具有决定性影响。特别是，最近的研究表明，政党在这个问题上的偏好沿着左右轴呈曲线分布，描绘了温和政党和极端政党之间的冲突。然而，这种分裂对使用战略叙事来支持或批评这些任务的影响需要更多的关注。本文旨在通过采用种子潜在狄利克雷分配（一种半监督的自动文本分析方法）来填补这一空白，以分析 1994 年至 2013 年间意大利最重要的部队部署的议会辩论。我们希望发现，虽然温和派表达了支持性的叙述，旨在在为使用武力辩护时，极端分子企图使军事干预不合法。因此，我们假设温和派政党更强调任务的多边和人道主义框架，而极端主义政党更关注其军事手段。实证结果在很大程度上证实了我们的假设。通过其方法和结果，本文在经验上和方法论上都对欧洲军事干预的政党政治辩论做出了贡献。