Someone in class on Monday had mentioned that in the MI, humans are the (vessel for) technology. I think this is an interesting point, especially in conjunction with the developments of our current military. The United States Army has been implementing robots in the Middle East to prevent unnecessary casualties. Soldiers can now direct these robots, which can detect and disable mines and have the capability of firing back at any hostiles, with remote controls from a safe distance away. There remains that element of human judgment, although in a much more diluted form.
In high school I had contemplated applying to West Point or joining RoTC; as for the use of this book by the various military academies in the United States, which was brought up in class, I don't think it's a scary thing. Starship Troopers stresses loyalty to the government and to protection of the general population, as well as the concept of "leave no man behind."
Additionally, this book justifies violence in a way that makes sense (I'm not saying I advocate it) and would mitigate the dissent of people who are against American troops in Iraq (namely those who harass soldiers or marines about "supporting the war"). I pulled this particular quote because it reminded me of another quote (Was it Alfred Lord Tennyson who wrote "Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do or die."?): "The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force...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..." (63).
I had watched the movie long before ever reading this book and I can remember my initial thoughts: Wow this movie must have been a low budget film. After reading ST and re-watching the adaptation, I also noted that: 1]It's strange that most of the characters look/are white, but have retained their more "ethnic" names 2]Dizzy Flores is a female and 3]Women are allowed in the MI for the sake of gratuitous female nudity...?
I'm interested in the ways that the text justifies the use of violence, though I'm wondering how well they translate to contemporary situations. It's true that it can never be the soldier's job to decide when to fight, but someone, somewhere up the chain is making that decision, and Heinlein's assumption of the judicious and careful weighing of that choice seems to me a bit utopian, given the ways that we've seen human error (and even cynicism) play into such decisions over the last century. Ender's Game presents a really interesting counter to this, I think...