The Revenge Game: U.S Foreign Policy During Afghan-Soviet War and Afghan-Pakistan Falling Into Hell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The U.S Foreign policy during the Soviets encroachment of Afghanistan at the height of Cold War has been evaluated, as well as its negative effects in Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak). During 1979, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R) landed on Afghanistan in order to secure Warm Water Ports and Persian Gulf Oil. (This was called as the “Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan”). By having this situation, The U.S government established a mission in Afghanistan which consisted on two main purposes. One of them was to stand against the invasion of Afghanistan provoked by U.S.S.R. and the second one was to provide Afghan Mujahedeen Movements with some help and be prepared for the coming situation. So, the provision of the most dangerous weapons and the need of billions of dollars were made to these fundamentalist Afghan mujahedeen. Thus, they could protect themselves and fight against the U.S.S.R invasion. As a matter of fact, the Taliban groups were founded due to U.S policy. Nevertheless, the establishment of them has become the biggest general threat to global peace, particularly for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This research consists of three parts which are going to be developed in the order as follows: The internal milieu of Afghanistan and the intervention by U.S.S.R, The U.S policy interests and the outcomes of these policies, The Afghan and Pakistan consequences which were gotten by these policies. This Research is going to be a new source of knowledge for understanding the U.S foreign policy during this War and their negative effects on Afghanistan and Pakistan such as refugee’s settlement and number of other problems. Although Americans just revenge from Soviets but this game also destroyed the Pakistan. Also as an explanation on the nowadays coming international terrorism and how the Afghan insurgents have become strong enough.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".