Should the security of a state be the first concern of a leader?

I love equivocating.

As such, I would assert that whether the security of a state (defined as territorial integrity) should be the greatest concern of a state's leader depends on how one defines territorial integrity. I'm not sure whether or not there is a formal, codified definition of territorial integrity (knowing political scientists, there may well be), but I see several ways in which the concept can be construed. Ignorance is bliss: I will happily fail to look up formal definitions of territorial integrity and joyfully equivocate.

In a broad sense, "territorial integrity" could refer to the state's monopoly on the use of legitimate force within a given territory. This monopoly on the use of force is the basis of the state, according to Max Weber, and the state fundamentally cannot exist without it. A ruler without a state to rule lacks power, and a people without a state to rule lack peace and order. As such, regardless of whether rulers should act out of altruism or self-interest, preserving territorial integrity should clearly be their first concern (with the possible exception of the transfer of authority from national governments to international bodies, which I view as in the best interests of a populace but no a leader - but I'll discuss that in further detail at some other point. There's no point in wasting a perfectly good blog topic now).

However, I don't feel that incursion by foreign armies represents the greatest threat to a state's ability to exercise a monopoly of force in most contemporary circumstances. War is certainly still a part of the contemporary world, but in many or most cases it is precipitated by, rather than followed by, a decay in the institutions of government and the rule of law; in other words, wars tend to begin not with conflict between states, but between a state and an internal non-state actor, as clearly evident in the well-publicized Russian invasion of Georgia. The most effective way to ensure external security is often providing internal stability.

Leaders should be more concerned with the strength of civil institutions than military ones: in the long run, both are necessary, but for the majority of the world's population, poverty, crime, and disease represent a far greater threat than marauding foreign armies. Domestic institutions - schools, police, and so forth - exercise their power on a daily basis, while armies may not need to exercise theirs for years or decades; the absence or weakness of domestic institutions leads to problems almost instantaneously, while the absence of military ones may not be consequential in the short term. Furthermore, a strong military is largely (albeit not entirely) contingent upon a strong economic base to purchase and produce weapons, while economic and social conditions depend benefit only marginally from a strong military.