I find that I usually start reading half-focused, but then settle into it if I push through, after enough pages. So now I accept it, I treat the first minutes reading as the warmup, and then once I settle in and find my rhythm that’s when the real reading begins.

you might very well register things even if you feel like you’re not reading. Though it’s more important to be assiduous when reading theory than when reading novels, but it doesn’t mean it’s all wasted.

A ruler type tool to help keep your eyes focused on the line you’re reading might be helpful too. We have one if you read online on prolewiki (totally not self-promo lol), if you press 0 on keyboard or the eye icon in the sidebar. Only works on desktop though. Otherwise for physical books you can find any ruler.

I don’t know about ADHD but I think the first step is not being hard on yourself for losing focus and just accepting it as part of your reading experience.

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:On_War I actually uploaded it onto PW a while back lol, there’s a link to the good PDF in the foreword. I uploaded the gutenberg edition bc it was easier at the time :(

Project Gutenberg has a copy but it’s an older translation/edition. There’s a newer edition that flows much better imo, you can find it by just looking for a pdf, though it remains a dense read. I recommend the first book (maybe even reading it twice if needed), and the second book. First book is still required reading in modern military academies. I think I stopped at book two, I don’t remember what the third book is about right now but the fourth is probably not that interesting anymore since it deals with tactics in certain situations (like attacking or defending a river). I’m sure that was fire in the 1800s but today somehow I don’t think it applies as much lol. Although you never know.

War is simply the continuation of politics by other means; to win a war, you have to ‘shatter the enemy’s will to resist, when the enemy is no longer able or willing to fight’. Clausewitz adds: the simplest way to win is to disarm the opponent so that he cannot prevent you from imposing your will (you can see the dialectical thinking and even though Clausewitz was an idealist there is clearly a material reality here).

If Iran can achieve the above, they can win anything. It depends who gets their will ‘shattered’ first and to what extent. When it comes to disarming I think the US is well on its way there with the interceptor shortage and the fact that invading Iran is complete nonsense from the get-go. Saddam tried and he had a full land border with it! I do want them to try invading though lol, just for them to taste the absolute defeat. Kharg is probably a misdirection, and they’re going to land way before the Strait in a relatively flat area, Chabahar. However then they will be confronted by harsh deserts - Iran is either mountains or flat deserts. They won’t make it 20 kilometers inland and I suspect if we do see an invasion, Iran will let them land relatively unchallenged so they can trap them there more easily. We shall see.

But anyway. There is precedence in Vietnam, for example. Not only through the two principles outlined above but also through Clausewitz’s point that war progresses dialectically. Both parties don’t immediately commit the totality of their forces, they gradually mount them up and it snowballs as both need to commit more and more to outdo the adversary.

In Vietnam the war became costly. It might be the typical liberal analysis of it but it’s the one I have lol. It was costly both in terms of money and equipment drained, but also in loss of life. I don’t know how much protests in the US participated, I think it’s often used as white savior reasoning i.e. “even when Vietnam won it was because we let them win”. When Vietnam won they forced the US to withdraw fully within 60 days, and then seized the comprador southern state shortly after unopposed.

But right now will to fight is very high in the US. It’s going to be difficult to knock them down from their pedestal. But when that happens Iran can firstly very easily end the sanctions against it, at least for a time, and pursue nuclear freely in the way they want. We both know the UN is a tool of imperialism and will just go along with whatever the US wants.

The bases around the Gulf are completely destroyed and keep being pummeled, so it’s entirely possible the US won’t even want to build them back up. It will take 10+ years by some estimates to rebuild some of the radars alone. They might want to rebuild them partially, with a scaled back presence. But the damage is done.

With that I think it will be possible for them to charge a toll through the Strait. Who would oppose them? the other gulf states are refusing to get involved beyond harshly-worded letters, they know they don’t have any defenses left if Iran decided to go after them.

“Israel” is a tougher case for me to analyze. I know that Iran is heavily shelling the entity, especially with cluster munition - these are more for soft (ie fleshy) targets. They do pack a punch but you also don’t really control where they fall, so their utility is in saturating an area and preventing congregation or passage there. But Iran has shown they can easily target whatever they want, especially with cheap Shaheds, so at this time I think their usage is more psychological on the settlers. But if you didn’t keep up with the clusters, there’s a ton of them being used. Every day I see new videos.

You all good comrade?