Barack Obama's goal to bring troops home from Iraq as soon as possible if he is elected president doesn't take into account progress on the ground that could be set back with a premature withdrawal, supporters for John McCain said Sunday.

But if progress is so great in Iraq, then why do troops need to remain? countered the Democratic candidate's backers.

Both candidates declined to appear on the talk show circuit Sunday, but had several surrogates out making their cases for them. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told "FOX News Sunday" that claims -- even in Saturday's New York Times -- that violence in Iraq is the lowest since March 2004 and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has gained political traction make Obama's point for him -- that it is past time to withdraw.

"I think that's the whole question. Why do we need them if things are going this well?" Daschle asked.

He added that he doubts Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, will tell Obama during an unscheduled upcoming visit to the country that if U.S. forces follow his path and pull out, the gains made so far would be lost.

"He is the commander in chief and he has made very clear that we've already spent more time in Iraq than we did in World War II," Daschle said, referring to the Democratic candidate.

"We really have to begin to understand that this has to be an effort that we turn over to the Iraqis. Let them govern themselves. Make sure we have a much more effective multilateral presence, but above and beyond everything else, let's understand that the real threat is not Iraq. The real threat is what we see in Afghanistan and around the world through the War on Terror. And let's put our focus where it really has to be put," he said.

Former Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge said McCain should get the credit he deserves for insisting on the "surge" -- sending more U.S. troops a year ago to get a grip on the violence -- and that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's clear understanding of the challenges means he is better able than his opponent to evaluate when it will be time to leave the country.

"This is a fundamental venue in the war against terror. Can you imagine turning this region over? You'd have terrorists supported by Iran, and you'd have one of the most abundant supplies of oil under their feet. ... John has said -- and we all hope that the presence of Americans troops in future years is in a non-combat situation, providing the stability and the kind of support we provided Germany and South Korea for years and years.

Daschle's response also raised the ire of McCain's campaign, which issued a statement saying that "the Obama campaign's ideological determination for withdrawal at any cost has blinded them to the facts on the ground even as they avoid the advice of our commanders. ... Barack Obama has offered nothing but the same old partisan positions."

In Obama's defense, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, countered that the threat to the U.S. on the ground is not coming from Iraq, but from Afghanistan, where hundreds of Taliban fighters have re-emerged while the U.S. focused on Iraq.

"We can argue about how quickly we should draw down in Iraq. There is no argument about the price we pay for staying in Iraq now," Biden said, noting that the top general in Afghanistan said that he doesn't have the forces he needs to deal with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. "John McCain is viewing this like he is the commander in chief of Iraq. The president of the United States has larger security concerns than merely Iraq, and there needs to be a balance here. And you cannot win the war in Afghanistan with the present level of commitment that is unnecessary in Iraq.

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that NATO forces are in charge in Afghanistan, and, he said it's impossible to not account for Iraq when dealing with the overall War on Terror.

"The biggest winner of a loss in Iraq would have been Iran, second only to Al Qaeda. ... We're not going to allow the hard work in Iraq to be ignored and not appreciated because we've got growing problems in Afghanistan. You have to win where the enemy is at. We are winning in Iraq. It will help us with Iran, it will help us in the region to defeat Al Qaeda, and NATO needs to help more in Afghanistan."