Citizens, lawmakers show growing unease with war costs going up.

Byline: William Neikirk

WASHINGTON _ White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey caused a furor two years ago when he suggested a war in Iraq could cost as much as $200 billion, a figure so high it helped prompt his ouster.

But with the cost of the operation now hitting $119 billion and slated to reach at least $170 billion by the end of 2005, a growing number of experts believe Lindsey's estimate may actually have been low.

As the war's costs creep toward that $200 billion figure, Congress and the public are showing a growing unease. The Bush team originally predicted the war would cost closer to $60 billion, and the cost could emerge as an issue in the election _ especially if the situation in Iraq does not improve.

"If Iraq is peaceful and the economy, society and infrastructure are being rebuilt without much violence, I think the American people and Congress will tolerate a very large bill," said Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "If the situation continues to deteriorate, they'll balk at even modest increments."

The most crucial factor in the war's ultimate price may be whether the United States fails to quell a violent insurgency over the next year, budget and military experts said.

One analyst, Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official now with the Council on Foreign Relations, said he foresees a multi-year cost of $500 billion.