I believe that there is more contrast between WWI and Iraq than similarities. I myself think that the Vietnam-Iraq comparison is a stronger one. The biggest similarity that I can see right away in the WWI- Iraq comparison is that they both had their explosion with a terrorist act. One last important comparison is that both were avoidable. From there, there are far too many differences.
The first difference is that America did not even want to get into WWI. America had an isolationist mentality. The war in Europe was a old style European conflict that the U.S. did not wish to enter in. It was only after Germany continued their unrestricted warfare did the United States enter WWI. Others had their conspiracy theory that the war profiteers wanted to enter WWI though. The Bush administration, in my belief, always had every intention of attacking Iraq for what ever reason they have made up now. Unlike WWI, the United States was the aggressor here.
The WWI comparison also fails because after the war, Europe wanted to make Germany suffer. This was especially true in the case of France, who had always been a main target for German aggression. The United States was the aggressor in the Iraq war and now it is trying to rebuild Iraq with BILLIONS in aid.
Wilson did also have his idea of his 14 points. His point that was stressed the most in the Paris peace conference was his idea of self determination. His idea of self determination did not apparently apply to Vietnam or the Middle East. These areas were quickly divided up between France and Britain, thus continuing on their pre-WWI imperialism.
As this current administration is finding out, democracy is something that cannot be forced upon people, especially with bombs and guns. Democracy is something that has to be a peoples choice and it has to be universal. The U.S. was not the perfect example of universal suffrage in the WWI era. The differences in these conflicts are too vast.