Eclectic: a point to remember is that attrition to armor and air only matters if war continues and they are needed. Otherwise, cost of doing business if Assad ends up on top when fighting stops. The loss of his aircrews is the critical issue. Regenerating them takes time and flyable aircraft, which he seems to be short of.
"According to the Syrian Revolution General Commission (SRGC) since the conflict began the Syrian Military have lost
37 helicopters
24 Mig, Sukhoi fighter and training jets.
40 aircraft were shot down, and 21 were destroyed in FSA attacks on military airport bases."
Harry:
Our old friends Sadam and Gaddafi were pretty sound on Al Qaida. Their main backers were the Saudi's and the Pakistani's. Sometimes doing good is the opposite of doing what is sensible.
The world isn't black and white, of course. Politics makes for interesting pairings. Some of the revisionist spray painting of Saddam and The Mad Colonel by recent folks with an agenda obscures the points you make.
As to Saddam "doing good" vis a vis Islamists, I'd say he was looking after his own interest, as was Muhumar. This aligns with sensivle, but not related to good, bad, or neutral.
It's what you do when you run a nation state: you look after your interests.