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, that means you don't "support the troops."
But if you call these combat soldier liars and insist that they have all the equipment they need -- even when they don't -- that is a sure sign that you "support the troops."
If a unit gains access to enemy weapons, and they 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 Barack Obama, is that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, there is little doubt that units in Afghanistan would be better equipped and better staffed in every way possible than they have been. That is axiomatic.
Fighting two wars on the opposite side of the Earth at the same time inevitably 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 and he was wise for doing that.
Rumsfeld's quote "you go in with the army you've got, not the one you want ..." is exactly the attitude Reagan counseled against, and in fact, it was one of his justifications for bolstering the defense budget and military readiness.
If you actually examine what Obama said, it boils down to invading Iraq was not a good idea and that not-good decision has had many unintended, but not unforeseeable consequences, including real impacts on U.S. soldiers serving in Afghanistan.
This is not an earth-shattering observation. And it certainly is not "unpatriotic."