Correct me if I’m wrong, but afaik this attack occurred on Syrian territory. It wasn’t an attack on Turkey but on Turkish forces occupying part of Turkey. They may have their reasons, but if this was an attack on NATO then every attack against American troops abroad is an attack on NATO.
^ Sorry, I meant ...”Turkish forces occupying part of Syria.”
Yep, that’s some unorthodox reading of Article 5.
The Turks invaded.
They’ve been a PITA since at least 2001 - wouldn’t let 4th ID go overland into north IQ, and they buy Russkie SAMs.
F’em.
“It wasn’t an attack on Turkey but on Turkish forces occupying part of Turkey. They may have their reasons, but if this was an attack on NATO then every attack against American troops abroad is an attack on NATO.”
No it isn’t. Turkey has invaded Syria, and they did so to assist rebels fighting the Syrian government. If the country you invade shoots back, that’s not an “attack on NATO”.
But even if it ever was, we are only required to “take whatever actions we deem necessary”. That could be a letter of protest. There is zero legal requirement for us to take military action.