While what you say is true, the NATO alliance does not remove the sovereignty of the aggrieved to say "this was a horrible mistake".
It certainly further isolates Syria, and while it may provide legal authority within Nato, nobody else (outside of Nato) has anything resembling an obligation to view such events as having a particular international legal consequence.
The agreement is certainly reminiscent of mutual treaties pre-WWI, in both cases it would need Turkey to say : We require your assistance under article XYZ ... and Turkey is not and will not do that.
Its a political failure for Syria, they continue to erode anything resembling sovereign authority, McCain is beating his drum that never needs to look hard to find, but in then end it is public opinion the Continent that measure what this means and what it excuses them to do moving forward.
Certainly, armed intervention is still always subject to the veto or approval of the Oval Office, although certainly the French were effective in migrating matters in Libya to some consequence.
That Turkey and Syria are to jointly deploy Navies to search is certainly spooky. Folks that were uniforms ad bear standards and colors are, no matter how disciplined they may be, certainly the most biased folks available (and for reason, esprit de corps much more valuable than gold).
| 