¡Que lo cuente, que lo cuente!
When I moved to the US for graduate school, the reaction of many people was “but, but, but… they have *drive-by shootings *there!” These were people living in a town where town-wide blackouts weren’t caused by electrical failures but by ETA “puppies” blowing up the main transformer station (and, sometimes, pieces of themselves). While one should always be safety-conscious, and knowing what areas to avoid is part of that, danger can be in the eye of the beholder.
Nm
If this were anything close to a significant part of the US budget, or if the number of “danger travelers” was greatly increasing every year because people assumed that if they got in trouble the US would bail them out, then I would consider agreeing with the OP. But right now, my understanding is that the expense is virtually nil in the long run, and the number of Americans abroad at any one time who need this kind of help is in the single or double digits, and therefore I think the benefit (i.e. the optics that “The US is a country that will always help Americans in trouble”) outweigh the minimal costs.
I don’t know that $ cost tells the entire story, as Americans held abroad can become bargaining chips, causing us to cede other interests.
I know that the state department posts various travel advisories. Personally, I have no objection to a blanket policy that, should you choose to go to one of the most dangerous countries, you are on your own.
Admittedly coloring my personal view is my impression (no cites or research) that a good number of Americans held abroad are religious missionaries, an activity I’m not horribly sympathetic towards.
Another significant portion are “adventure” tourists, who “didn’t know” they were hiking so close to a certain country’s border. Get GPS, and stay well aware from the rabid dog. If you choose to get to close, don’t expect sympathy should you get bitten.
I’ve been to North Korea, Iran, D.R. Congo, Somaliland and other “dangerous” places. I felt saver walking around Tehran than I did in Detroit.
The US government should never restrict what countries Americans can go to.
I see where this Warmbier’s father is blaming Obama for his son’s plight and hailing Trump for getting him released. Even if there’s some validity to the notion that the Trump administration’s approach worked better, I don’t think he can fault the Obama people. They didn’t owe him anything.
Agreed. Which is why I wrote in the OP “… expending great expense, in either money or political capital” (emphasis added).
It’s not at all clear that he engaged in frat boy behavior. The roommate with whom he traveled, a middle-aged man from England (IIRC), said that he saw nothing that would indicate that he was capable of doing what he was accused of. That of course doesn’t prove beyond all doubt that it didn’t happen, but given the lies we’ve already been told about why he’s in a coma and given the regime’s tendency to lie about the state of captives in general, we shouldn’t accept their claims at face value.
Of course none of that addresses the very real risks of traveling to a country that with whom we have no diplomatic relations – that is a very real risk. I’d agree that it’s not the riskiest thing that someone could do, but it’s a risk nonetheless.
The OP asks a good question. I have not noodled on it much, having spend a lot of time in silly places.
I note that when some yachtsman sails almost around the world, it is our duty to try to save him. This is a long-established duty common among all civilized people.
When a child is lost in the woods, we expend great efforts in trying to save him. Further we never make any effort to recoup our costs from the family.
I would suppose the same sort of think applies in these cases. While there are certainly limits as to what we can do, we ought to make an effort.
Incidentally, the British and Israelis try to get their people out of stinking hellholes of foreign jails. The Americans will send the most junior Foreign Service Officer, just to watch you rot. Obviously the State Department has made its decision.
I agree with this to a point, but I would counter by saying that at least traveling to a country like North Korea humanizes them a bit, and I don’t think that’s insignificant. Americans have for years supported foolish foreign policies that have accomplished nothing but lay waste to foreign cities, make people hate us, waste trillions of our tax dollars, and gotten a lot of our young men and women killed. People support the foolishness not out of malice but out of ignorance. Traveling doesn’t make anyone more sympathetic to a Putin or an Ayatollah or a Kim Jung Un, but it does allow us to see the people there as humans. It might not change the stupid behavior of their governments, but it might help us prevent the stupid behavior of ours.
Why did you go to North Korea?
Because it’s there! 
Seriously, it seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do, but I think the incidences where we, as a country, have to spend a lot of time and money extricating this folks is trivial. This seems like it should be way down on the list of problems needing to be solved. But if you can’t see why we should do this, imagine that it was your son or daughter. I think that would clear things up pretty quickly.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/dpk/alcohol/alcohol-poisoning/dpk-vs-alcohol-poisoning.html
I conclude from this that the voluntary behavior of having a drink should be banned. The consequences are simply too expensive for the state.
They tried that already. Didn’t work too well.
Okay, then, let’s prohibit cars, guns, cigarettes, swimming, and climbing up on the roof to clean your gutters. Those are all voluntary and kill people.
To be fair, I don’t think the OP is proposing that Americans be prohibited from doing those things. He seems to be saying that if you do reckless things, you’re on your own.
Maybe a more accurate proposal, if you own a gun and there’s an accident in your house in which someone gets shot, you shouldn’t get an ambulance ride to the hospital unless you pay in advance first. Or maybe if you smoke and get cancer, Medicare won’t cover you.
All of these are odious ideas, of course.
I propose: The Affordable Travel Act. This will include a mandatory fee (it’s not a tax!) for anyone who doesn’t have “dangerous travel insurance”, which covers the cost of extraction from any non-Muslim country that is not on the Travel Ban list.
the middle east is not dangerous.
some countries in it are, but millions of the westerners pass through or work in the middle east with no problems ever.
the fact you use this broad brush says that your premise is based on a very weak assessment of the potential risk.
but if you want to become a yet more inward looking country, ignorant of the outside world… your choice of course.
the US Embassy fortresses I see I can understand better from these reactions. They look quite funny compared to the French, the British embassies…
Also, because reasons: Don’t go to Iran
Why are you buying into North Korea’s narrative about Warmbier?
I think that might apply to a lot of other dangerous countries, but not North Korea.
I don’t think North Koreans are hated or seen as communists, but as victims. There’s a lot of hatred toward its government… which will beat a prisoner into a coma and arrest all nationals of a country it’s having a problem with, while constantly threatening to attack its neighbors. In short, I see very little gain, while there’s risks that you don’t need to take.
Traveling to Muslim countries would more closely fit what you’re saying, I think, since most Muslims are being tarred with the same brush in the west, usually by people who have little to no contact with Muslims. (There’s more safe countries to travel to in the Middle East than not, but I think avoiding active war zones and places where terrorists either kidnap people or “buy” them from criminals is a good idea.)
I agree, that does seem to be what the OP is meaning.
A few years [8, 10?] when the pair of women got jail time for preaching at students in Afghanistan[? wherever it was illegal to do the Christian Mission thang] I mentioned that I thought we shouldn’t actually DO anything, they went in fully informed that it was illegal, they said they understood and wouldn’t, then they turned around and did it. Sort of like any criminal, they needed to understand they broke that country’s laws, so they needed to be punished according to that country’s laws [much like the asshole kid that got caned in SIngapore.] You do the crime, you take the punishment.
I can understand something like being a hiker and accidentally wandering over the border into somewhere you aren’t supposed to be, but that is entirely different.