Consequences Versus Costs and Difficulties

A word on this sentence from a recent New York Times editorial:

And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power.

Perhaps it's a too-subtle languagey point, and I don't mean to belittle the experience of those who've suffered in ways related to U.S. actions in Iraq, but "consequences" strikes me as an odd word to use in that context. It may be that the resonance of the word relates to longstanding differences of opinion on the issue.

"Consequence" feels like it indicates a thereafter solidified state of affairs either tangential or subsequent to an objective; note the awkward "flowed from" phrase. An all-night bender could have the consequence of a lost job; the Ba'athists' invasion of Kuwait had the consequence of American military involvement. By contrast, when results are reasonably predictable and accepted, whether permanent or fixable, when striving for a particular goal, "difficulties" or "costs" would seem more appropriate. Freeing a nation of people can come at a great cost, but its consequences appear to be positive (i.e., the democracy domino effect).

Certainly perspective plays a role. For the family with a son or daughter KIA, his or her admirable decision to enter military service had horrible consequences (mixed with the positive, in the current case). But from the point of view of geopolitical analysis — which is what the Times is ostensibly offering — it would seem more appropriate (and quite different) to say that the removal of Saddam Hussein came at a cost, bringing democracy despite difficulties.