People contain multitudes.
That Heinlein portrayed military service as acceptable evidence of such responsibility is kind of dumb but doesn't deserve being boiled down to "Heinlein said militarism was good, haw haw".
That said, there are lots of instances of the clerk-typist being told to grab his rifle and fill out a billet for a patrol and similar things --- RH actually speaks to this and other similar, but broader concerns in _Starship Troopers_
"If you have to explain satire to someone, you might as well give up".
It's among his weakest novels but I'm not sure how anyone would derive "genocide" out of it. IIRC, it was a plot point that the invaders also treated Asian-Americans brutally.
To me it's one more sign of how masterful a storyteller Heinlein was that his embrace of the contradictions was conscious and not just a result of some sort of inner conflict.
Stranger In A Strange Land is so creepy, I started to wonder about the sanity of Heinlein. A sex cult around a pseudo-alien? C'mon. It feels like it was written by a 14 year old.
I would submit Incandescence as the best sci-fi novel ever written.
But tastes obviously differ.
In a world with both Greg Egan and Ted Chiang writing sci-fi, one has to exclude their novels from any best-of comparisons just to give other authors a fighting chance.
> What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers. I believe that too.
- Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five
I just read a memoir by the Chinese short story writer and novelist Yu Hua. In the first three years of his career, he wrote stories were full of graphic violence and death. He also had constant nightmares in which he was hunted down and killed. After one such nightmare, he started thinking about the executions he witnessed during the Cultural Revolution as a child. He grew up in a fairly sleepy town, so the "trials" that were a regular occurrence during the Cultural Revolution were a can't-miss public spectacle. When someone was sentenced to death and taken away in a truck to be executed, he and his friends would race to the execution site, hoping to get there in time to see it happen. If they made it in time, they saw the accused executed with a rifle bullet to the back of the head, sometimes watching from just a few feet away. After the nightmares brought these memories back, he decided that if he wanted to stop this violence from being reproduced every night in his nightmares, he needed to stop reproducing the violence every day in his writing. So he stopped writing about violence, and his nightmares went away.
If you only knew that he grew up in the Cultural Revolution, wrote incessantly about violence for several years, and then stopped, you could easily say that there was nothing strange about that, it's not a head-scratcher, but hearing the story as he tells it is much more interesting than simply saying "it's not strange." Raising this question about Vonnegut, even if it has been raised before, might eventually unearth some information that fleshes out his story.