[BeerClark]

First, I have to mention that I hadn't read fiction in years. I am a huge fan of ST - The Movie. When I read the criticism of this book on wikipedia as well as reading someones complaint of how the movie butchered the book.... well.. I HAD to read this book!

One thing I observed that I think counters a lot of criticism of the book is how the whole thing is put togethor and told. This book reads like a true autobiography of someone that served in the military. If you changed some of the settings (and aliens), I don't think anyone could tell the difference between a real autobiography (of a soldier/sailor) and fiction. Whether this was Heinlein's intent or not, I thought that aspect was Brilliant.

The whole book is a potrayal of one man as seen through HIS eyes and mind. I see a lot of criticisms of the book as complaints similar to "...well this is how I would have written it...". Well you DIDN'T write it! Its the life if a career military grunt/officer. The man is risking his life and killing for his job. Of course there is going to be a more positive spin from Rico in justifying (truthfully OR self deluding) his life/career.

I think Heinlein also does some justice in NOT potrying everything as 'perfect'. For example, while it is always a military person in charge, Rico also brings up how there are politicians who simply did their minimal service in order to run for office. I didn't get the impression that those people are looked at as 'pure' military by other veterans. While Heinlein doesn't dwell on the 'less than perfect', he at least shows that it exists.

One thing I noticed that seemed interesting is mention in the book how fighting is inevitable from the human race and that only one can win. It sounded a bit imperialistic. I wonder if in addition to the bugs correlating to communists (as someone mentioned earlier), but if that comment was also corelating to political ideals (democracy vs communism).

I think anything else I would add is repeating was has already been said.