Truces or cease-fires are not universally accepted as opportunities to solve differences through negotiation. Instead they may be viewed as opportunities for the sides to rearm and prepare for the next round.  

It was during the 1970's that cultural awareness burst very suddenly onto the scene.  The catalyst was a sudden rush of business with Japan.  American sales people, attempting to use good ole' American sales tactics found that they didn't work well, and that American slang expressions such as "dog and pony show" were simply confusing to their Japanese trading partners.  A similar situation showed up later in Central and South America when Chevrolet attempted to sell its Nova automobile there, not figuring out in advance that it could easily be misunderstood by Spanish speakers as a car that won't go; that is in Spanish, "No Va".  Of course, cultural literacy runs both directions, and gradually our new business partners became more understanding of American ways, all to everyone's benefit.  

Since then, however, there has been a revolution of sorts in the cultural awareness business.  The result is that, despite the focus on racial and ethnic differences directed toward that chimera of a multicultural society, many pundits in the international field  have began to focus on a "one big, happy family" approach, which has not worked out.  The differences between societies are still there, and they aren't going away any time soon.  Differences in culture exist even between regions within one country.  One can easily see how distinctly things change between urban and rural populations in the United States, or between the Northern and Southern states.  Cultural differences were one of the major factors leading up to the War Between the States, and were more important than the issue of slavery that has been incorrectly held up as the sole reason why it happened.  Similar cultural differences exist between various parts of China, Northern and Southern Vietnam, or for that matter Baltic Germany, as opposed to Bavaria.  

Ignoring cultural differentiation is a mistake more often than not.  It cannot be emphasized too much how English imposition of certain cultural norms on the colonies was frequently to their long term benefit, if they accepted and learned from it.  India is probably the prime example where the British Raj outlawed the cult of Kali, known for committing ritual murders, and the practice of suttee where a surviving wife was expected to burn herself alive on her husband funeral pyre.  Making radical changes in Indian society led to India's ability to function as a successful modern democracy while other nations in the "third world" are still unable to get their minds to accept the concept of nationality or representative government.

Warfare is another area where cultural views can be of major importance.  During the 100 Years War there were numerous truces during which the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement of the issues, once and for all.  In fact, the periods of truce actually outweighed the periods of active fighting.  However, in other regions truces or cease-fires are not universally accepted as opportunities to solve differences through negotiation.  As became readily apparent during the Crusades, the Arab did not treat them in the same manner as the Europeans.  Their view was that the truce was an opportunity for the sides to rest, rearm, and prepare for the next round of fighting.  This difference appears to have been culturally linked to the European's general idea of finding a way to avoid combat and to institute the "Peace of Christ", while the Arabs saw combat as part of their religious duties; in fact, as their way to avoid judgement on the "last day" by taking a shortcut to heaven through fighting and dying for the cause.  (See Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, pg 154-155).   This difference was brought into harsh focus by comments recently made to Sean Hannity when he asked a guest on his radio show what he would say if he could get the leadership of Hezbollah and Israel together at a negotiation table.  The guest launched into a discussion of the redeeming power of divine love, and how God wants everyone to live together in peace, and that this would do the trick.  This answer showed his total lack of knowledge of Islamic doctrine which contains no concept of divine love, or concept of redemption.  His idea would be  doomed to failure from the start, were it ever seriously tried.  

This lack of cultural awareness has been at the heart of the inability of the West to deal with the certain issues in that region for some time.  The simple fact that George W. Bush called Islam a "religion of peace" betrays an underlying lack of knowledge, or perhaps, an intent to mislead his audience.  We may never know the truth behind this statement.  

What matters more is likely to be the attitudes and beliefs of the terrorist leadership.  If they truly believed that 72 virgins were waiting for them, they might be the first to strap on a suicide bomb.  They don't, which leads one to suspect that they believe more in using the story for personal power, getting others to do the fighting for them, so they can survive to rule after the opposition has been eliminated.  They take advantage of the opportunity for power that their culture has provided, particularly when gullible and narrowly educated people are unable to question their authority because they don't know how to ask the necessary questions.  Likewise, seemingly secular leaders support the terrorists because it it allows them to retain power, at least for the present.  

This leads to the issue of leadership in Iraq.  As Ralph Peters recently wrote on the current situation there "Political violence with a religious undertone is becoming outright religious violence. The difference is crucial. The earlier fighting was over who should govern. Increasingly, it's about who should define Allah's will on earth. Nothing could be more ominous."

In order for truly democratic society to exist the people of Iraq must be willing to turn away from rule by imams in favor of ruling themselves.  They must come to an understanding that allowing the clerics to exercise power over them is not in their own best interests.  This is why references to Islam in the new Iraqi constitution were a mistake.  They hinder the creation of the civil government needed to solve Iraq's internal problems by retaining links to the pre-Saddam power stucture; a power structure that is all too willing to replace him with another state just as brutal, but with a different underlying philosophy. 

Current US policy, by ignoring the cultural realities of the region, leaves our efforts short of success.  Allowing Islam to continue as the centerpiece of Iraqi society and bowing before the imams simply allows them to continue control the people, which will, in the long run, prevent social change.  This will, in turn, prevent the successful introduction of democratic government and social institutions that we are purportedly there to create.