One of the strangest things I've often heard repeated concerning the book is it is "glorified fascist fantasy"... which shows a lack of understanding of what Heinlein was trying to communicate. A better understanding of Heinlein's views might be take from his character Prof. Bernardo dela Paz in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".-- which is to say Heinlein appears to have been a "rational anarchist"... perfectly happy to obey [or not] any rules you happen to set... The pill that chokes the critics of this book appears to be that Heinlein proposes that having a government made up of people that have proved their willingness to put themselves in harms way to protect humanity by serving it for 20 or 30 years might be better than the usual way Democracy does things.
If you follow the chain of logic of Starship Troopers story the society and government of his earth is exceedingly rational... Heinlein pointed out how our current "military-industrial complex" is hopelessly bogged in bureaucracy... The "Mobile Infantry" is built so everybody works & everybody fights... unlike our current military. For Heinlein's other "send up" of the military and "politics as usual" read Glory Road.
Even being the spine-less Liberal that I am, I can read the book and understand how / why someone might believe things should be arranged this way... On the other hand I am not so trusting of modern jingoist "rugged individualist" folks that call themselves libertarian [when in fact they are more often than not whiney self-centered babies who believe that a souless corporation is better than a gunked up bureaucracy... Which only proves they are the kind of ignorant that Heinlein would have hated.]. Heinlein graduated from Annapolis and he did serve this country. Where did Verhoeven serve?
As for the movie... If it is a satire it is not of Heinlein or the book he wrote, since the only thing that they have in common is the name.
There were no female troopers in the book.
While Heinlein has been called anti-feminist and a patristic SOB, the reason he only had males fighting is he believed [right or wrong] that males and females have certain roles... females make better pilots and males better warriors [we're not talkin' equal rights agit-prop here, just biology]. Females are the future of humankind and deserve to be protected [see the Notebooks of Lazerus Long about the true purpose of laws] Heinlein believed that a man will fight better if the last thing he hears before he drops is a female voice wishing him luck... Is it true? Who knows? -- we've never tried it. It appears that the Heinlein that is held up by liberal critics is actually a "straw man".
There were no jump troopers in the movie.
The purpose of the mobile infantry is being "the most effective fighting organization in history"... What we see in the movie is the equivalent of the old Saturday Matinee B Monster movies... Heroes or monster fodder... either or... which only shows a failure to understand Heinlein's chain of reasoning.
So if the movie is a satire, then it must be a satire of someone trying to satirize a book with which they disagree and do not have the wit or the art to craft a movie to accurately depict both the right and the wrong of the author's thesis and how the author chose to resolve the conflict... if it is a an actual satire of Heinlein then it is a FAIL -- and even a liberal like me can see that...
As for Card's "Ender's Game"... Here is a story written by homophobic writer telling a story about how someone exploits a child into murdering another race by playing the equivalent of a video game... Um... yeah... Better title: "Molested by the Military"...
I think the exploitation of Ender and Card's homophobia are probably related... Yet the difference between Ender and Card is that Ender actually has some kind compassion for people that are not like him... while Card has proven how really small he is as a person and that he is apparently incapable of compassion for people that are not like him [i.e. if you are not straight & Mormon then you should have no right to be happy]
Heinlein never doubted that in the race to survive Humankind should fight tooth and nail to survive and not lose sleep over dead enemies... As an old saying puts it: "The best revenge is to outlive your enemies." Yet even as we look to survive we might some time stop and ask as Rabbi Hillel did: "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?”
No Heinlein is not perfect and for those who don't want to think through the hard parts it's easy to say he was a jingo-ist and goose step fascist... I have not seen a "liberal SF writer" address the issues or ideas that Heinlein did and offer "alternate solutions." Where are Doctorow, Sterling, Gibson, or Stephenson's equivalent stories and solutions? I may not completely agree with Heinlein's politics but I'm smart enough to respect his ruminations on the subject...