So, I've been reading a bit online of one of my old favorite books.

"Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein, has become one of the most reviled books in liberal circles because of the current fashions of intellectual criticism. Add to that the extremely hideous adaptation by Paul Verhoeven, who admitted that he hadn't read the book and wanted to criticize US Military Policy by direct Nazi allegory, and you have a book that the vast majority of casual readers see as a Fascist novel, celebrating supreme rule of the Military.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y07I_KER5fE]

Unfortunately, most critics of Heinlein's work are quite well schooled in arts, letters, social theory and Democracy. They are NOT well versed in the thought process of soldiers, or the current political climate in which civilians see soldiers as ignorant cogs in a machine to be either pitied or reviled depending on the moods of the moment.

The first major criticism levied is towards the government of Heinlein's imagined future, and the idea that only "Citizens" can vote. Heinlein creates a society where only those who have served the common good of the society are allowed to vote. Much is made by critics about how that is a "Self-perpetuating Autocracy" wherein the military will enforce a right wing nightmarish future.

This criticism is not without merit, but lacks a fundamental understanding of the current climate of politicians who have never seen war, and yet will vote for any possible offensive action, secure in the knowledge that only profit will flow their way, in higher approval ratings from others ignorant in war. In essence, Heinlein was arguing that "the vote", of which declaring war is an integral part, cannot be divorced from the consequences of such action.

"To permit irresponsible authority is to sell disaster." -Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers.

Criticism also descends upon Heinlein's "Barbaric" punishments for the main character and others in the story. Justice in this world is often swift and corporeal. An actual depiction of a flogging occurs, cementing the imagery of slavery and horrifying many.

Again, the emphasis is on the wrong thing. The criticism of the punishment ignores the comparative humanity of the quick and clean punishment as opposed to our own system of government which humiliates victims. A lashing in public square is treated in the story as if it completely pays all the debts for the crime. There is no extended confinement, and societal shaming afterwords. As a result, while the imagery has unfortunate connotations, Heinlein was attempting to show a justice system in which the punishment fit the crime, and settled the mater. In addition, the punishment is carried out publicly, not allowing the government to hide misdeeds behind soft slavery of the parole system.

Finally, the idea that the story is "Racist" for its depiction of the enemy as literal "Bugs" or their allies "Skinnies". In essence, some critics feel that the terms used by the soldiers is indicative of their inherent racism, since in wars soldiers often refer to their enemies as "Haji" or "Gook" or any number of epithets.

I find this hard to accept, because it requires a reading of the book that requires you to assume that the main character is not only an unreliable narrator, but that the entire story and details of the military action are not what he claimed. In essence, the criticism is a suggestion that all soldiers are evil killers, and that they regularly lie about everything that occurs in the service. Since I do not share those assumptions about the nature of soldiers, I will not respond further to that particular criticism.

Finally, I think that Heinlein's Character Zim summed up best what Heinlein was attempting to portray. This speech was completely cut from the film version, but I won't blame you if you hear it in Clancy Brown's voice.

"War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people—‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say—supply the control."

I would add, that the "Older and wiser heads" that Heinlein referred to would be required to be fully cognizant and knowledgeable about what they were asking the soldiers to do. Yes, the ideas that Heinlein espoused would not work for our society as it is now. However, for the society he imagined, it's not only logical, but possibly the greatest idea for ensuring that wars are minimized:

Don't let people who won't go to a war start one.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqpHIPpkWRw]