Starship Troopers

Monday 10/23/06
1900

Over the weekend I finished rereading “Starship Troopers” by Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. In fact, the very first book I ever checked out of a library by myself was a Heinlein book (either “Red Planet” or “Have Spacesuit, Will Travel” – I can’t remember which). Heinlein’s writings had a very strong influence on my intellectual development, and it’s clear that this book was no exception.

I can’t say I had actually forgotten how much I liked it, but reading it now, in this context, gave me a renewed appreciation for how I think it must have affected me as a teenager. As near as I can remember, I think I read it for the first time in junior high sometime.

The setting is sometime in the distant future. The Terran Federation has been at war on and off with two rival civilizations, the “Skinnies” and the “Bugs”, alien races who also possess the technology for space travel, but which have evolved and are organized quite differently than humans.

The book is the story of a young man who joins the Mobile Infantry (“MI”), goes through basic training, experiences combat, and then goes to Officer Candidate School (OCS), becoming a Lieutenant and platoon leader at the end of the book.

At the beginning of the book he’s a high school student, wondering what he believes in and what to do with his life. Quite a bit of time is spent describing the operations of the Terran society, largely through the discussions in his History and Moral Philosophy class, which is taught by a combat veteran. (Structurally, the book has a lot of flashbacks, but it’s easier to describe chronologically.)

Twentieth Century society is described largely in negative terms, in a tone of disbelief at how people could harbor such outrageous ideas as abolishing corporal and capital punishment (public flogging and execution are standard punishments in this future society), and allowing just anyone to be a citizen and have a vote (the privilege of full citizenship is reserved for military veterans in their time).

The book was written in 1959, and is described on the cover as having been “controversial”. I suspect these were the ideas that led to that description, although it is also possible that it was controversial because of its unapologetically enthusiastic view of the virtues of military life.

Each chapter begins with a quote from a famous person which extols some military virtue or praises the military life, and which is relevant in some way to the content of that chapter. While this is in a sense “icing on the cake”, I think it serves the purpose of setting the fictional tale into the context of real history, lending it an air of relevance and authenticity, and inviting us to take it seriously.

In the book, the entire structure of their government was set up by military men after the chaos at the end of some great war and societal collapse in 1987. While the actual mechanism of government is not described in detail, you get the sense that it is a relatively libertarian society, closely modeled on the United States with the exception of the universal franchise. Civilians live full, productive, and free lives in a very safe, orderly society. They can simply remain civilians all their lives if they want to, or they can choose military service and thereby make themselves eligible to vote and hold public office.

At one point the protagonist is asked by his instructor: “What is the difference between the soldier and the civilian?” “The difference”, he answers, “lies in the field of civic virtue. The soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not.”

I don’t know that this is the first place in which I ever encountered this idea. The connection between military service and civic virtue has been implicit in my life since I remember, both through the examples of my father and grandfather and also in the many military books I read. But this fictional representation of a high school history and moral philosophy class gave it a much more explicit formulation, which I suspect got me thinking about it in a different way than I had before. I don’t ever remember a time in my life that I didn’t expect to be a soldier someday, but I’ll bet reading this book for the first time added fuel to that fire!

It just occurred to me that perhaps the all-volunteer professional military was also a controversial idea in 1959 – at that point we still had the draft, and fielded a conscript Army in Vietnam.

There are some extended discussions about the nature of rights and duties and their relationship to a moral life. I can’t say that I agree with them in detail – some of what he says is incompatible with Objectivism. But when looked at in context, it reaches the same endpoint. What he expresses as a “higher duty”, I would see as a manifestation of enlightened self-interest. While it’s a very important philosophic difference, in practice his formulation is the way most people (well, most of those who think about it at all) would be likely to hold the idea in their minds and express it if asked. It doesn’t detract from the story, so I didn’t find it objectionable. Much like working with Christians – you know that you hold some diametrically opposed ideas, but in practical terms you find yourself agreeing with them on many things and working towards common ends.

The book goes into great detail about basic training and OCS, and contains quite a bit of combat action as well, as they go to war with the “Bugs”, a civilization of completely communal insect-like organisms. The technology and action are typical Heinlein – well written, exciting, and plausible.

Quite a bit of time is spent discussing the difficulties in understanding and dealing with the alien nature of Bug psychology. Being a hive-oriented race, they have four classes (sort of like bees) – workers, warriors, brains, and queens. The workers don’t fight, but are used as decoys to distract the MI and cause them to expend their ammunition. Warriors are the only ones who fight, and they never, ever stop until they are dead. There is no surrender and no communicating with them. Brains and Queens are never seen.

Various campaigns are fought, trying out different tactics with varying degrees of success. The war is long and hard, with heavy casualties both among the MI and also on Earth, as the bugs attack and destroy entire cities. Eventually, through trial and error, the MI discovers tactics that will work, and are able to capture a brain, presumably giving them an edge in understanding bug psychology and enabling them to win the war (we don’t see the end of it).

I think this idea of a long, difficult campaign against an alien culture is applicable to our current situation with militant Islam. While they are not communal per se (this was probably an oblique reference to the Red Chinese when the book was written), they do hold quite different values which leads them to behave in ways we do not expect. But the even more applicable part is the conflict between civilians wanting peace and the military view that the war needed to be prosecuted to a decisive finish. While not a major part of the plot, there is enough discussion of this to ensure that the reader understands that Heinlein’s view on the subject agrees with General MacArthur’s: “In war, there is no substitute for victory”.

I’ll write more about this idea of a long campaign when I write about “The Savage Wars of Peace” (which I also finally finished). But for now I’ll close with a old Army verse quoted in the book that seems applicable to what I’m doing now:

“Six days shalt thou work and do all thou art able,
The seventh the same and clean out the stable.”


Mood: Good
Music: Domenico Scarlatti – Stabat Mater