Could the Syrian National Council have overturned Assad's government nonviolently?
That worked in Tunisia and Egypt, though of course it did not prevent a lot of subsequent problems resulting from secular/Islamist political division. I think it probably could have worked in Syria as well, although the same divide would surely have caused a lot of the same problems
(An interesting take on the turmoil in Tunisia is here-- http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/20138310271198303.html)
The NCB had three principles: non-violence, non-sectarianism and opposition to foreign military intervention. They were derailed because the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar absolutely refused to tolerate that third principle. These countries started the civil war the problems of which they now want to fix by blowing more shit up.
http://www.alternet.org/world/america-has-fueled-bloody-civil-war-syria
1) As protests spread through the Arab world in 2011, the mostly leftist groups who organized the Arab Spring protests in Syria formed the NCB to coordinate peaceful protests and resistance to government repression. They agreed, and they still agree, on three basic principles: non-violence; non-sectarianism; and no foreign military intervention. But the U.S. and its allies marginalized the NCB, formed an unrepresentative "Syrian National Council" in Turkey as a government-in-exile and recruited, armed and trained violent armed groups to pursue regime change in Syria.
2) The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar began flying in fighters, weapons and equipment to turn the Syrian Spring into a bloody civil war. Once they had overthrown the government of Libya, at the cost of 25,000 to 50,000 lives, they began adapting the same strategy to Syria, despite knowing full well that this would be a much more drawn-out, destructive and bloody war.
3) Even as a Qatari-funded YouGov poll in December 2011 found that 55% of Syrians still supported their government, unmarked NATO planes were flying fighters and weapons from Libya to the "Free Syrian Army" base at Iskanderum in Turkey. British and French special forces were training FSA recruits, while the CIA and US special forces provided communications equipment and intelligence, as in Libya. Retired CIA officer Philip Giraldi concluded, "Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained and financed by foreign governments are more true than false."
4) Over the past two years, we have learned more about who is doing what in Syria. Anti-government sources acknowledged in June 2013 that 2,100 of the 16,700 rebel fighters killed so far in Syria were foreigners, while only 145 of 41,600 loyalists killed in action were foreign Hezbollah members.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Neither Egypt or Tunisia had armies shooting at unarmed protesters (there were instances in both Tunisia and Egypt where police did fire and some did go to jail for it, but generally it was peaceful by its nature). The same can't be said for Libya where 400 protesters died in the first day of protests (and collective punishment was the law of the land there, so the protesters were desperate and armed themselves).
Syria itself is an anomaly because they protested, peacefully, for weeks. The protests stated on the 26th of January and the first police weren't killed until March 20 (largely in response to protesters who had been killed). The first large killing happened on April 22. Still no large conflict or armed resistance though Daraa was besieged. The death toll up until this point, throughout the entire country, was only a couple if hundred at most, from all sides. At this point freaking New Orleans or Chicago, from a pure numbers perspective, was more dangerous than Syria. May 5th is when the Homs was besieged, however, and the government took a harder stance.
It wasn't until June 20 of 2011 that Assad declared tens of thousands of sedition (which I covered simultaneously as I covered Libya, because it was a sea change in how Assad was handling the unrest, many observers until this point thought Assad was being "OK"
. You have to keep in mind tens of thousands were protesting almost daily this whole time and the protests only grew from there. The crackdowns on protests were severe from then on.
The Free Syrian Army was formed July 29 with mass defections from the Syrian army after the weeks earlier resignation of Riad al-Asaad. 6 months and 3 days after the beginning of the largely peaceful protests. By December 'only' 4,000 dead at most, most of whom were civilians. Or 12 dead a day. Certainly bad, but no worse than Mexico, or many Latin American countries, for that matter. This is not a country at war. Turmoil, yes, but Civil War, no. Safer than Detroit, safer than Saint Louis. The month of December 2011 indicated a ramp up of hostilities by both sides. By the end of December the deaths were 6,000 or roughly 33 dead a day, extra. It has since ramped up to 100 dead a day.
I can't say when it truly became a civil war as far as violence is concerned, but the creation of the FSA certainly legitimized Assad's crackdown on people, because he originally called the protesters treasonous but once you make an army, well, you are going to be in for a world of hurt.
I believe that ultimately nothing could've been done peacefully other than opposition members laying down and giving up their agency, probably being executed in large numbers, and jailed for years in even larger numbers. Once Assad crossed that "red line" of accusing peaceful protesters of sedition, well, he couldn't go back.
