Can you show some links? I've been looking for a little bit and haven't found articles that mention Syrian forces by 'Assad's Forces'. It would to me seem unprofessional if they did. Even the posted link says ' Syrian regime forces' in the article.
World War II (1939-45) - NYTimes
As far as I can see from all of these articles -- all of these remain consistent with 'German Armed Forces' or Nazi's' and Soviet troops not 'Stalin's troops' etc etc. It doesn't seem right to me that a country's armed forces would be called anything other then a broad term (loyalist forces for example if need be). Hitler was just one man.
World War 2 Newspaper Headlines
Here is another example where the newspaper articles referred to the armed forces as 'Reich Troops' and 'her' troops etc.
Here is another article that refers to them as German Forces.
Every documentary and article I have seen and that I can recall for example -- in regards to lets say the WWII Germany forces as either the Germany Army (or some army designation) or the Nazi forces.
Also, as far as I have seen, lets say of the Ukraine forces -- the reporting hasn't been 'Putin's forces'?
It would seem rather weird to me if they did. Every time I see an individual refer to them as 'Assad's army' or something it just is weird. It just doesn't make any sense to call any country - some single man's army. What happens if the Syrian government makes a deal that forces Assad out? Those same forces I guess then wouldn't be Assad's forces after all right? That's why you don't label them a single man's army.
It'd be like calling Al-Qaeda Osama be laden's forces. Was OBL the face of Al-Qaeda? Yes, but the point is, you look at the ideology/country which is beyond one man -- dictator or not. That is why Al-Qaeda is the name of the terror network not OBL's forces.
So again, the SAA works for the country so even though Assad happens to be the President of Syria (and more precisely its dictator) thus you still should refer to the Syrian armed forces as an entity not as a person's army. You can even go as far as to call it forces loyal to Assad which still signify the distinction between saying that and 'Assad's forces' as it does in this BBC article.
Syria: The story of the conflict
They mostly refer to the armed forces as 'Government forces' or 'Regime' there. It's the SYRIAN armed forces -- not Assad's personal militia.
Even in this BI article -- they say 'Assad's Regime etc
This is the Assad regime's military strategy for winning the Syrian civil war