Well, they do it, but sometimes they do it too late. Sometimes they miss the countries that are actually at high risk and sometimes they do it where the risks aren't that extreme. The case in point is Bahrain, for example. Bahrain is indeed in a critical situation. It could escalate rapidly into political violence in the capital in the commercial district. But as of two weeks ago, when the protests were in full swing, there was no travel advisory warning against going to Bahrain.

Bahrain's own economy and size is not that huge, but because of its geopolitical importance it's a place where you might find proxy wars fought, where the state is likely to use heavy force against protesters. Because it's so small, and because all businesses are generally concentrated in central Manama, then you are best off not going there. But these nuances are sometimes missed and sometimes travel advisories are a bit reactive, so they come after the fact.

Yes, but obviously at some point that can be avoided. For instance, in July 2006 when war broke out in Lebanon, there was no warning and no way to tell the war would break out. A lot of people were stranded and embassies had to evacuate their citizens to naval forces and it got very messy.

But those are wars, and they can arise quite quickly. But things like popular uprisings, and in deteriorating security situations with the fragmenting of armed forces, things like that, you can probably spot it if you're a bit more discerning and understand the nuances of the politics in the country. It really depends on the violent situation. But in a war between Israel and Lebanon you would probably have zero warning time and you would be caught in the middle of the situation.