The ultimatum that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has presented to diplomatic officers -- to accept assignments to Baghdad, or else -- has set off a firestorm inside and outside the department.

Until now the demand for officers to staff the American Embassy in Baghdad has been met by volunteers from the Foreign Service, ready to go for the challenge of the assignment, from duty or in response to a range of incentives, including more money and promises of career enhancement and agreeable postings after Baghdad.

Now, as the Iraq war moves toward its fifth year, and with no end in sight at least during the Bush administration, there are unfilled staffing gaps in the new $592 million Baghdad embassy. In response to the lack of volunteers for these posts, department personnel head Harry K. Thomas Jr. uttered the dreaded "directed assignment" words and put them in writing.

There are arguments both ways. Every new Foreign Service employee is obliged to sign a pledge of worldwide availability. That is to say, they agree to go where they are sent -- no ifs, ands or buts. In practice this has evolved over the years into a complicated dance that has been successful in meeting the needs of both the department and its personnel. But the signed agreement remains; the diplomatic service is not as strict as the military but the concept is the same.

The opposing arguments arose in a stormy town-hall meeting Wednesday in the department between employees and Mr. Thomas. Not only did employees voice their anger at the situation of service in Iraq, but they also raised two other pointed questions. First, has the situation in Iraq deteriorated to the level that diplomacy can no longer be carried out there? Second -- a painful question -- does Ms. Rice care what happens to department employees? In the face of these questions, Mr. Thomas cut off the meeting.

On balance, the Post-Gazette believes that the officers whom the Department of State assigns to Baghdad should go, sparing the country whining that is not a luxury afforded American military personnel. If they don't want to go, for personal reasons or because they oppose the war, they are always free to resign. That could be a loss to the country. Imagine, for example, that an officer has learned Japanese, has already served in Tokyo and is an expert on the Japanese economy. It would be a waste for the country to send him to Baghdad, or to push him to quit.

There is precedent in modern American diplomatic history for nonvolunteer assignments. The Johnson and Nixon administrations used them to staff offices in Vietnam as that war went belly-up. The balking in the Foreign Service this time is another sign that it is time to wind up this war before it does as much damage to America's diplomatic service as it has already done to its armed forces.

First Published: November 3, 2007, 4:00 a.m.