It is not news that U.S. combat soldiers are often not given the equipment they need to fight and survive to fight.
So let me get this straight.
If you point out that combat soldiers are often forced to train and fight without important pieces of equipment that they are supposed to have, this means you don't "support the troops."
But if you call these combat soldiers liars and insist that they have all the equipment they need -- even when they say they don't -- this is a sure sign that you "support the troops."
Just checking.
If a unit gains access to enemy weapons, and the weapons are safe and usable, they will use them, especially if their own supplies and supply chains are not reliable at the moment.
The bigger point, in which I agree with what Barack Obama actually said, is that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq and was not now occupying Iraq, there is little doubt that soldiers in Afghanistan would be better equipped in every way possible than they have been and are now. This is axiomatic.
Fighting two wars on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time puts enormous stresses on any military force and military supply chain. None of this is earth shattering.
Ronald Reagan was very reluctant to commit U.S. troops into vulnerable positions after Lebanon for precisely this reason.
Donald Rumsfeld's quip that "you go in with the army you've got, not the army you want ..." is exactly the attitude that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush counseled against.
If you examine what Barack Obama actually said, it boils down to the proposition that invading Iraq was not a good idea and that this doubleplusungood decision has had many unintended, but easily foreseeable consequences, including very real and very acute impacts on U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan.
This is not an earth shattering observation.