Afghanistan and the railway counterfactual

The Afghanistan example begins with a proposal to combine air transport with high-value farming. Flying valuable produce out might be economically viable, but fertilizer and other heavy inputs would still have to enter along difficult roads. A railway could have reduced transport costs in both directions, opening larger markets to existing agriculture and industry while making imports cheaper. The same long-term program already contemplated dams and other major infrastructure, which raises the question of why rail was omitted. The passage does not claim that a railway would certainly have changed the war. It uses the counterfactual to show how civilian infrastructure can affect the viability of a military and political strategy.