Do you think the freeing of the slaves in the southern U.S...?

In a sense it does.

Lincoln's original plan was to hold the union together; he had no plans to liberate the slaves. His later decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation was more politically motivated to prevent Britain and/or France from recognizing the Confederacy. He reasoned (rightly, it turned out) that by altering the debate from Union to Slavery it would make European recognition less likely. After all, who wants to stand up and shout HOORAY for slavery, right?

A similar argument can be made for the Iraq war. Originally, the war was about removing an important Al Qaida ally, and producer of weapons of mass destruction. But after both charges were proven false, the justification was changed to one of liberating the Iraqi people and (I hate this phrase with a purple passion) "nation-building."

Lincoln was a genius who knew how to mold public and world opinion to the achievement of a noble goal. And George Bush is... well...just George Bush.

Cheers, mate.

Both wars were fought for capitalist enterprise. And both wars use "liberty" as a substitute for "capitalism."

But of course, neither the slaves nor the Iraqis were liberated, nor was the liberation of either ever the intention. With the Civil War, the intention was to sustain a nation-state wherein the agricultural south could supply the industrial north with raw materials. Just like, in Iraq, the intention is to supply the capitalist US with Middle Eastern oil.

the Iraqi one was rather more made up

No, I see no relationship between the two situations.

No because we can't be there forever enforcing rules that they don't have the means to follow.