The articles under discussion are devoted to the analysis of the Iraq problem from different perspectives. Thus, Biddle, Friedman, and Long focus on the evaluation of foreign intervention in the Iraq War. The key feature of the analysis resides in the fact that they treat the US intervention reservedly, putting the main emphasis on the intervention of the neighboring countries. On the contrary, Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart, in their turn draw the readers’ attention to the negative outcomes of the US participation in Iraq’s conflict. Therefore, the key target of scientists’ research is to prove the assumption that foreign occupation increases the so-called “national pride” and results, consequently, in the rejection of the moral values that the foreign militarists try to impose.
In the meantime, both research papers base on a similar study structure – they provide a detailed elucidation of the literature background, foreground a hypothesis, describe the research design and discuss the findings. It is critical to note that the articles’ issue dates back to a similar time period; hence, their authors regard the events from a similar point.
First, and foremost, it is critical to examine the basic structure of the two research papers in order to compare the frameworks within which the authors of the articles carried out their studies. From this perspective, Biddle, Friedman, and Long try to test their hypothesis with the help of comparative analysis. The scientists work out a table illustrating the data on foreign interventions in the inner conflict in different regions around the world. Such an approach enables the authors to draw consistent conclusions based on the empirical evidence retrieved from historical experience.
Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart, in their turn, employ another approach to hypothesis testing. The authors use a survey in order to answer the research question. Their choice of the study’s design might be explained by the fact that their variables have a more ambiguous character than those in the first article. In other words, national pride is one of the aspects that cannot be properly assessed with the help of the historic data; instead, they are to be analyzed through the lens of individual opinions on the relevant phenomenon. It is also important to note that this survey has some implications for the negative outcomes of the American invasion, whereas the previous study does not include this issue in general research.
The key point to be analyzed in the framework of comparing the two studies is the way they address the US invasion. Thus, Biddle, Friedman, and Long’s rhetoric, concerning US participation in the conflict, is rather appraising. The authors believe that “preventing the war from spreading via foreign intervention” was the main aim of the American military forces (Biddle, Friedman and Long 85). Another peculiar feature of their approach resides in the fact that they never address the US activity in the region as an “intervention”. This term is applied widely to the actions of other neighboring countries but never to America. The relevant phenomenon makes one assume that the authors assign positive characteristics to the American presence in the region, and avoid using evaluative statements in its relation.
As to the Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart’s opinion, they treat American activity in Iraq as “a foreign occupation” – the relevant term is frequently met throughout the article. Moreover, contrary to the previous research, this study does not provide any justification for the American presence in the region. Unlike their opponents, Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart do not believe that American intervention could assist in solving the regional conflict and preventing its spread beyond Iraq’s borders.
As a result, the scientists’ vision of foreign intervention in regional conflicts and its outcomes is different. Hence, the key idea of Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart resides in the assumption that foreign presence, the American one, in particular, is likely to create an environment favorable for the development of nationalistic views. In the meantime, they point out the importance of ethnical identity as the determining factor of one’s susceptibility to nationalistic ideas. They illustrate these differences through the examples of Shi’is and Kurds groups that show the opposite attitude towards the foreign occupation (Moaddel, Tessler and Inglehartn 696).
Biddle, Friedman, and Long’s interpretation, of the US activity in Iraq, is directly opposite. Thus, the authors assume that the most harmful decision would be the withdrawal of the US military operation in Iraq but not the beginning of this operation. The scientists rely on the idea that it is American passiveness that could have led to the conflict’s extension and the involvement of the neighboring countries “into a wider war with potentially severe humanitarian and international economic effects” (Biddle, Friedman and Long 85).
In other words, Moaddel, Tessle, and Inglehartn treat the American occupation as a cause of further problems in the region, while Biddle, Friedman, and Long consider it to be the measure preventing potential negative outcomes. They tend to re-assign the major part of the responsibilities for the degradation of the situation in Iraq to its neighbors that pursue their own interests, whereas, America, in their point of view, is the most neutral and non-biased player in this conflict.
Finally, there are some particular aspects that each article describes individually. Thus, in the framework of their study, Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart pay a lot of attention to the question of national identity in ethnic groups within Iraq. The scientists believe that each group has a different attitude towards foreign presence due to their cultural and religious background.
They also examine such factors as tolerance to Christianity, Anti-Sectarianism views, as well as education and income levels, treating them as a determinant that shapes public attitude towards foreigners and their morality. According to the authors, the weaker is a groups’ feeling of national identity, the more proud this community tends to be of being Iraqis. Such an approach lets scientists examine the problem from different perspectives. Thence, they do not draw any univocal conclusions regarding the character of foreign occupation but put a particular emphasis on the fact that this intervention is treated differently by various ethnic groups in the region.
Biddle, Friedman, and Long, likewise, eliminate an aspect that cannot be found in the second article. The nature of the study makes the authors perform a close examination of the national peculiarities of Iraq’s neighbors. The scientists draw a conclusion that the links that form between the rebel groups and the political circles of the neighboring states imply considerable risks of foreign intervention (Biddle, Friedman and Long 97).
According to the authors’ assumptions, in the framework of Iraq’s problem, it is Turkey that is most likely to carry out the intervention in inner Iraq’s conflict. The researchers explain this idea by the fact that this country has a particularly powerful military potential, and there is also an “affinity relationship as a former colonizer” that might determine its decisiveness to interfere (Biddle, Friedman and Long 97).
Another aspect that Biddle, Friedman, and Long touch upon, contrary to the other researchers, is the question of the way scientists should address political conflicts and similar ambiguous problems. The authors suggest that any debates that rise around political issues should not be carried out in isolation from empirical studies of international relations. They believe that theoretical and empirical data can be highly assistive in framing the examined problem and generating consistent insights about it. They assume that it is the absence of a systematic analysis of the scope of evidence and experience that prevents scientists from drawing valid conclusions (Biddle, Friedman and Long 98).
As a result, it might be concluded that the two articles address the same issue in a different manner. Both studies are devoted to the examination of Iraq’s problem and the outcomes of foreign interventions or occupation. In the meantime, the authors of these articles have different visions of the studies’ subject. Thus, Moaddel, Tessler, and Inglehart suggest examining foreign occupation in the framework of the level of national identification.
They believe that different ethnic groups have the opposite attitude towards foreign forces. On the whole, the authors’ general rhetoric concerning US intervention in Iraq is rather negative. Biddle, Friedman, and Long, on the contrary, treat American activity in this region positively. They believe that it is the withdrawal of the US operations that could have led to the degradation of the situation and provoked the intervention of the neighboring countries that pursued their interests.
Works Cited
Biddle, Stephen, Jeffrey Friedman, and Stephen Long. ” Civil War Intervention and the Problem of Iraq.” International Studies Quarterly 56.1 (2012): 85-98. Print.
Moaddel, Mansoor, Mark Tessler, and Ronald Inglehart. “Foreign Occupation and National Pride: The Case of Iraq.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72.4 (2008): 677-705. Print.