Much has been written about the need to establish the rule of law in failing or failed states. Additionally, much has been written regarding counterinsurgency theory in light of the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the large contributions made by scholars and practitioners in these areas, little has been written regarding a particular area in which these fields intersect. Scholars addressing this intersection primarily do so in the context of nation-building or post-conflict reconstruction. In other words, they focus their attention on the civilian justice institutions; namely, establishing and maintaining the civilian law enforcement, judicial, and corrections systems. Government civilian and military practitioners do the same and, unsurprisingly, this focus manifests in their doctrine.Nevertheless, when security forces conduct counterinsurgency operations they are by their presence within the state, action against the insurgents, and interactions with the indigenous population impacting the rule of law within that state. Thus, it becomes apparent that security forces should consider whether or not adhering to the rule of law while conducting counterinsurgency operations is beneficial to defeating the insurgency. If following the rule of law is beneficial, it then follows that security forces should consider what factors assist or prevent them from conducting operations in accordance with rule of law principles. Scholars have yet to directly address these issues and, given the rich body of literature in both counterinsurgency and the rule of law, the lack of attention is unfortunate.
