From the start the Syrian National Council had been tainted by Muslim Brotherhood high handedness strongly encouraged by a host who should have stayed neutral. Assad's secular opponents were given virtually no role until the Saudis and the West forced grudging changes. Now a more inclusive organization may be forming in Istanbul, according to a twitter from Mike Doran of the Brookings Institute. It could include Manual Tlass. Islamists have always cold shouldered him and other Alawite defectors--not because of former ties to the regime, the pretext used by the MB, but the Brotherhood's non-entity feared any well-known secular figures as potential rivals. Yet it is exactly such people who are most likely to persuade remaining supporters to abandon Assad.
While in command of the SNC abroad, the Brothers contributed zero to fighting the Bad Guys as most Syrians could see. By hogging control of the SNC, the Brothers actually helped the regime survive by persuading Alawites and other minorities to stick with Assad. Why should the leave if the only alternative was Islamist rule? That the Brotherhood claims to have reformed cannot be trusted has been demonstrated in three cases: Turkey, Syria and Egypt. Once given power, the Brothers combine solid economic incompetence with a total disdain for civil or political liberties and massive intolerance for criticism from any sort--the public, the media, the internet. Even bloggers can find themselves behind bars.
That the Brothers waiting to assume their heritage in Syria behave like Erdoganor Morsi it is no accident. As a trans-national organization, the Brotherhood visibly implements common strategies cooked up somewhere else. To state that another way, loyalty to the Bund easily trumps concern for any individual nation or for its people.
In Egypt the MB did virtually nothing to oust Mubarek just as it has done virtually nothing to help oust Assad. Afterwards, using promises it never intended to keep, the Brotherhood moved in to seize the prize for which others had taken the beatings. Employing its superior resources, financing, discipline, cells, international networking, experience and secretiveness, the Brotherhood won a razor-thin election with small turnout. It's first move was to impose a strong Islamist constitution written by a handful of hardline insiders which was followed by a "no compromise" majoritarian government. That haughtiness stirred up mass protests mass protests similar to those Mubarek faced.
The Arab Spring sought freedom, not Islamist rule. All of this raises a good question: If Egyptians or Syrians find Brotherhood high handedness hard to bear, what chance has Al Queda to win them over? The Middle East isn't Pakistan. The only way to prevent it from becoming so is to keep religion out of government and make it a private matter--enforced neither by social police or by Salafi/Basilj fanatics toting clubs and acid.
The West learned that lesson the hard way over centuries. Muslims are now de-secularizing at a far more acclerated pace. It is the threat of such change that has created an extremist movement that is inherently reactionary. Theirs is a quest that cannot help fail but not without violence because it seeks to impose a rigid, unchanging society incompatible with any modern society with high edcuation, technology and living standards.