Very good point, not one that that has been considered.

Then some nosey, noisy Americans got involved. Mr. Miyagi said,”They don’t know what they’re doing. They wake up sleeping tiger”. He was right.
The sleeping tiger woke up and got me, Miyagi and all his cronies.

I am seriously concerned about the welfare of the three writers and hope everyone at Matador is wishing for their safe return. They are in a cage with a sleeping tiger. It’s probably best we don’t make too much noise and wake the tiger up.

Quietly, give your support to those who work secretly in the background, in Iran, my friends or those three writers are screwed.

I’m a traveler – not a dopey, liberal backpacker. Even if I were the latter, I wouldn’t put myself in harm’s way without paying for the consequences.

I am sure the backpackers knew exactly what they were doing and I am sure once they get out they will tell you they deserved it. I don’t think they should be left to rot as some suggest, and I certainly don’t think they are stupid – but one can hardly be outraged at what is happening. I also am not losing sleep over it.

What I don’t like though, is how it seems everything is so black and white: you are either against them, bleating away on ABC or you are 100% behind them. I’m not against them but I’m not behind them either. I believe people should stretch their legs and go beyond the call of Western Europe but I think there is a huge difference between that and hiking in a uneasy Middle Eastern country.

That said, what I really wish the news would do is stop portraying them as “hikers” or “backpackers” – I bet if off the bat they had described them as journalists, then all this backlash wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

There is a HUGE difference between backpacking on the Iranian border in a war zone, and ‘…that travel (outside of the U.S and perhaps Western Europe) is dangerous, reckless, and stupid.’ That’s just sloppy emotionalist exaggeration.

“This is what Sarah Shourd did with her articles on Yemen and Israel; she took risks and put herself in uncomfortable, unfamiliar situations and came out with stories that stick with the reader long after he/she has finished the last sentence.”
You’re absolutely right. She took risks. Period, full stop. The word risk has meaning, it’s not just there for decoration. The reason we get a frisson of adrenaline walking near the edge of a cliff is because it’s a risk. If we accept that risk (of falling off) because there might be a beautiful view that nobody’s ever seen before, we – as independent, intelligent adults – CHOOSE to trade the small chance of mortal peril in the hopes of gratification. That’s our choice. But then, if we go slip sliding over the edge, it’s not a tragedy, it’s a choice we made. Sometimes the dice are against you. We can feel a basic human sympathy for people in suffering, but when they DELIBERATELY PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO SUFFER…well, ultimately it’s their problem. Thanks Darwin.

What ‘people’ are commenting on is the absurdity of people choosing to take a very high risk, and then being surprised when it turns against them, and the ridiculous efforts extended by the US gov’t to ‘rescue’ them from a situation of their own choosing. It’s kind of like Siegfried and Roy – the dudes played with TIGERS. The fact that ultimately one of them got chewed was a) unsurprising, b) not worthy of more than simple sympathy, and c) certainly not worth the intervention of the US gov’t to save him.

There are oodles of interesting places to backpack in this world that aren’t in a war zone, and even if you felt compelled to backpack in Iraq, there’s lots of interesting bits of Iraq that aren’t near Iran. (And deliberate disingenuity doesn’t help your point. North Kurdistan is a resort area, lol. That’s hilarious. I’ll have to recommend that to my grandparents when they take to the motor home next summer.) To have deliberately chosen such a place, and particularly with their extensive backgrounds and knowledge – they were no novices, as you point out – was a clear choice. Personally, I do think it’s a little disrespectful to assume their choice was out of a cavalier disregard for the danger. They were professionals pursuing (I’d guess) their chosen occupations. Respect them for that, but aside from their employers who might have a moral obligation to try to beg them free, I feel no compunction about forgetting them and moving on to the next news item of the day. If they do get out, I’ll avidly read their story…because that’s why they took the risk (presumably). But I’m certainly not going to lose sleep over their fates.

The reason that they are being referred to as kids is because this sort of risk-taking behavior is very common to youth; be it because they either disregard the actual risks, or accept the risks because of a narcissistic belief in their ability to control events. Their biographies suggest to me too that they got a little cocky, but I’m not really invested enough in their outcomes to care. Of course, it’s not always youth: just google Pippi Bacca (30?) and how this hiker – “(who) wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people” ended up.

To answer your specific question, ‘what if she’d been abducted in Yemen?’ – well, having been in Yemen myself extensively, I’d say it was because she stupidly ignored the long historical and cultural history of most of Yemen, which is a violent, godforsaken place with a brutal culture (especially toward women and girls). There are Yemenis I consider my close friends, both in Aden (mostly) but a few from the area of Jibla. There are some amazing things to see, eat, and do there. But I wouldn’t call it safe.

So no, to contradict your title – travel isn’t just for ‘idiotic idealists’. But ultimately, Darwin rules. Don’t be surprised if he bitch-slaps you for naive choices. And don’t be faux-shocked if the rest of us, who chose not to take such risks, aren’t terribly sad about the result.