Tourism Afghanistan?
Robert Pelton's column in the November "National Geographic Adventure" magazine recommends Afghanistan as a tourism destination, which seems feckless, reckless, and premature to me.
He says the north is mostly safe, the south mostly unsafe, and Kabul okay, but one should have a private car there after dark. This is all true, but fails to take some critical issues into account. First, the country is still quite volatile, and the security situation in the "safe" areas can and does change in the blink of an eye. Second, it's difficult to get good information to make security decisions with - even more difficult if you're there short-term and only have one source of info to rely upon. Without a strong information network, it would be all too easy to walk into a dicey situation. And finally, Pelton, being a man, hasn't seemed to have given much consideration to what it's like for women to travel around Afghanistan: bad. It's doable, sort of safe with precautions, but the precautions necessary don't make travel much fun. Don't get me wrong, there are some foreign women functioning in the wilds of Afghanistan, but they aren't tourists, and I wouldn't want to put up with the crap they have to.
Pelton also blithely says that friendly natives will guide you around the occasional landmine. This assumes that a) the friendly natives know where all the mines are, b) the natives are actually friendly, and c) the mines haven't moved. Yes, erosion and mudslides can cause landmines to move. No, there is no "map" of where the mines are. I don't fret about mines in the urban areas (though a child stepped on one in Kabul this spring), but I certainly wouldn't trek through open areas.
"Adventure" and "conflict" tourists are starting to come to Afghanistan. But I wish National Geographic would be more responsible with their recommendations and be more honest regarding the risks involved in such travel.