Originally Posted by
polonius
Hmm, well, every time I leave Qatar (pretty much no matter where I am headed), I have to re-train myself to do things like lock my door when I go out, or not to leave valuables in an unlocked car.
No place is totally safe. But the issue is more that perceptions of safety are typically not related to actual safety. Perception is often related to what is known and familiar vs. the unknown, which can create irrational feelings of unease and danger. In reality, I suspect that Yemen -- one of most amazing places I have ever been -- is probably safer than most places in Los Angeles. Mumbai almost certainly is.
I remember during Gulf War I, when I was living in Washington D.C., which had a population of around 600 000 at the time. After the end of the war, the Pentagon released statistics showing that about 600 000 soldiers had participated. Of these, there were something like 300 fatalities. During the same period, around 450 people were murdered in Washington D.C., so you were actually safer on the front lines of Gulf War I than you were living in Washington.
The advisories are fueled by input from each Embassy's Security Officer. As you can imagine, when you work in that field, you see danger everywhere, because your job depends on keeping the Ambassador and the embassy safe. I've visited numerous embassies, and the incoming RSO brief is usually quite comical - if taken literally, you would stay in your hotel room and not venture out. Most of us ignore them, of course.
What these advisories don't do is note that just because a certain location might have a high crime rate, that is often limited to a certain section of the city or country. For example, in Washington DC, as long as you stay away from Southeast DC across the Anacostia River, and certain sections of Northeast (near Trinidad projects), you are perfectly safe.