Okay - as a veteran, I read, enjoy, sympathize with, and utterly disagree with the theory of government Heinlein was expounding on in Starship troopers.
But it *is* a valid theory of government, that citizenship is distinguished via volunteering for government service. Notably - the *only* benefits given for this in the book are that you can
B) Run for Public Office
C) Teach Social Studies (And evidently hold certain other specific jobs not mentioned)
The theory being that, having been willing to put your life on the line for society, you are qualified to make decisions about people putting their lives on the line for society.
I disagree with it (I think it undervalues other contributions to Society), but the point is that agree or not Heinlein makes a valid argument and puts enough into it that you can disagree with it and still admit it's a valid argument. If you're going to satire it your satire needs to be as smart as the original book.
Bluntly, it's not. It answers the arguments of the original book by ignoring them and treating them as unworthy of argument - the term for that is not satire, it's contempt. It would be merely insulting if that contempt were in the venue of an original work that took the premise from a new angle - but they didn't do that. They actually bought the book, then pissed on it.
Now, let's be honest - it this were, say Anthem, I wouldn't care. You can logically prove that Anthem actually sucks as an argument, and you can treat it with contempt without actually being dumber than it is. But Starship Troopers doesn't actually meet that criteria. It has an argument you need to actually answer.
As Satire, it completely fails.