PARIS has known other massacres, even in recent times. On 17 October 1961, Parisian police fired on a peaceful demonstration of Muslim supporters of the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN), which was leading the bloody fight for Algerian independence.

The death toll has long been disputed but lies between 60 and 160. Taking the whole four months between September and December 1961, as many as 325 Muslims may have been killed by the Paris police and para-militaries (often acting clandestinely).

Law and order in the French capital came perilously close to breaking down. FLN bombs had killed 11 policemen in a matter of weeks. In retaliation, the prefect declared a night-time curfew on the 150,000 Algerian Muslims living in Paris – a move both stupid and racist. Predictably, the FLN ordered all Algerians to march against the curfew. To prevent this, the police interned 11,000 Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians in Paris’s giant sporting stadiums – a tactic whose memory might explain the choice of targets on Friday. Nevertheless, thousands managed to demonstrate illegally on October 17. Angry policemen opened fire. Many wounded were simply thrown into the Seine, where they drowned.

None of this excuses by one iota the evil deeds of last Friday. But it is a cruel reminder that history has a very long reach. Friday night’s massacre inevitably will produce calls for instant vengeance and demands to “do something”. As someone with close friends in Paris,

I’m not immune to such passions. But a few more drone strikes in Syria will settle nothing. Now, more than ever, is the time for cool heads and a dispassionate assessment of how we build a permanent peace across the Middle East.

We need to start by understanding why the West is seen as the “enemy” by so many young men of Islamic backgrounds. To understand is not to condone the senseless murder of innocent people enjoying a Friday night meal. On the other hand, Friday’s carnage in Paris is replicated every day across Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan – in large measure because previous Western policies served to destabilise the region. Also on Friday, a suicide bomber struck a Shi’ite mosque in the Hay al-Amal suburb of Baghdad, killing 21 people and wounding 46. Our constant meddling in the Middle East for economic gain has come back to bite us.

Unfortunately, after the public failure of “liberal intervention” in Iraq and Afghanistan, craven Western politicians have retreated into a bizarre “do nothing” mode, hoping history will go away. Result #1: Daesh has emerged in Syria and Iraq, the Taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan, and Libya is a by-word for chaos. Result #2:

Europe is being flooded by refugees (understandably) fleeing these war zones.

TO fill the political and military void, President Obama, David Cameron and the Nato military establishment have focused on using drones to assassinate key individuals in the IS and Taliban structures, such as Bin Laden and Jihadi John. Killing the odd jihadist makes for big tabloid headlines. It is, in most cases, evil men getting their just desserts. But the hard truth is that drones do not achieve very much politically or militarily.

In a political cult that prizes martyrdom, there will always be those willing to step in for leaders or operatives killed by drones. It is also expensive – which suits the defence industry no end. A single American Reaper drone, used by the RAF, costs circa £18.5m. The total cost of one weapons load for a Reaper is about £250,000 a mission. (Typically, the Watchkeeper, a British drone project, is now four years late and hundreds of millions of pounds over budget.)

The emphasis on drone warfare is a colossal diversion that only breeds complacency in Western governments. As a result, we face a an even more unstable Middle East.

A belligerent Iran, run by a clerical dictatorship, is now the regional superpower. Putin’s Russia has ended its post-Soviet diplomatic and military purdah, sending air combat units to Syria and challenging Nato naval dominance of the Eastern Mediterranean by deploying sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. The alliance of Sunni despotisms, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, has sought a temporary rapprochement with al-Qaeda, as a counterweight to Iran.

In Afghanistan, the situation is deteriorating. Last week 65 Afghan soldiers surrendered to the Taliban in the embattled district of Sangin in Helmand. This is the very area to which British troops were dispatched by Labour’s John Reid back in 2006, supposedly to help with “reconstruction”. UK troops were mostly withdrawn in 2014, leaving 456 dead. Today the Taliban has won back or contests six of Helmand’s 13 districts. An assault on Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand and former British HQ, is imminent.

IN Syria, only the Russians and Kurds seem to be making any headway against Daesh.

The Syrian Army, supported by the Russian airforce blasting away with cluster bombs, has just broken the Daesh siege of the strategic Kweiris air base near Aleppo. This is the Assad regime’s biggest success for some time. The US and UK have been silent about it – one assumes because they don’t want to give credence to the Russian intervention.

But tactical defeats inflicted on Daesh only serve to strengthen Iran, the regional super power. Iranian Revolutionary Guards effectively lead the Iraqi army, while the most effective troops battling Daesh are the Iranian-leaning Shi’ite militias. A victory in Iraq against Daesh is therefore a victory for the Iranian clerical regime. Last week, Akram al Kaabi, leader of the pro-Iranian militia in Iraq, announced he would depose the elected Iraqi Government if ordered to do so by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader.

These developments prove that the West needs more than a gut, populist reaction to the Massacre of Paris. Rather, we require a new long-term political engagement that goes beyond a few drone strikes. A crucial starting point is ending the civil war in Syria by international agreement. Conceivably, that might mean accepting the Assad regime pro tem. For Syria is the key to defeating Daesh and defusing the refugee crisis. I also think the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative could be the basis for negotiating a permanent solution to the Israel-Palestine question, provided the initiative is updated to give both Israel and the new Palestinian state secure borders against jihadist infiltration.

Where might Scotland fit into this scenario? Small nations don’t have the economic or political liberty to prevaricate about their security. That is why I support Scotland staying in Nato, where we will keep the trust of our Scandinavian and Baltic neighbours – especially given Putin’s predatory moves. Equally, small nations – because they have limited military power – are more adept at exploiting every potential for negotiation, to secure their best interests. Think of Finland facing down the old Soviet Union or Norway brokering the Oslo Accords between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Scotland should use its modest diplomatic weight – even inside the UK – to push for an international agreement on Syria, perhaps in conjunction with other small European nations. If the big Western nations are in denial, the small ones should take the lead. Paris is worth more than a Mass.

Paris attacks terrorist still on the run but his brother is arrested

Scots women hid in theatre cellar as terrorists fired on Bataclan concert audience

Letters to The National, November 16: Furious reaction is what the terrorists want

The National View, November 16: To France, with love - good people will always defeat the depraved

Markets braced for turmoil in wake of Paris attacks

The Paris terror attacks: How events unfolded over the weekend

Far-right Front National likely to use Paris attacks to increase division