Sen. Jack Reed insists he doesn’t want to be Secretary of Defense.

I can understand that Democrat Reed, looking at it as an abstract idea, indeed would prefer to steer clear of the Pentagon and stay in the Senate, where he has what is likely a lifetime lock on a seat and has emerged as a top voice on military issues.

But G. Wayne Miller’s recent in-depth Sunday Journal profile of Reed reinforced my belief that the former paratrooper would not balk — could not balk — if actually asked to take this powerful and important Cabinet post.

Special Report

U.S. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island says he intends to stay where he is, but his name comes up frequently as a candidate for vice president or secretary of defense. A special report by Journal staff writer G. Wayne Miller

Chat: On April 28, projo.com hosted Senator Reed for an hour-long chat. Read the transcript.

Audio slideshow: From Cranston to West Point

Audio: Washington leaders agree, Reed speaks with authority

Your turn: How would you like to see Senator Reed wield the power he holds?

More Bakst . . .

Miller’s report was bolstered by scenes of Reed visiting West Point, the academy that transformed this son of a Cranston school janitor and became the metaphor of a life of public service. It is where Reed is an alumnus and where he taught and where, eventually, he was wed.

Sure, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seeing Rhode Island’s governor is a Republican, hates the idea of having a GOP appointee named to fill the seat Reed would have to vacate.

If indeed the new president wants Reed for Defense, the Democratic General Assembly could, as late as a special session next fall, mitigate party fears by changing the law to provide for a Senate vacancy to be filled via special election. Such a bill already has been introduced.

Reed, 58, says he’s “privileged” to be a senator and the chamber needs members with expertise. And, sure, there’d be less job security and more headaches at Defense. But refusing what could be tantamount to an order from the commander in chief seems uncharacteristic.

As he was about to enter the House in 1991, Reed told me he had committed every minute of his life for basically a year to his campaign, and committed his own funds. He added, “Throughout our history, people have done this. I don’t want to get too melodramatic, but the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.”

In 1992, he spoke of frustrations in congressional service, but added that members had no right to complain of sacrifice:

“Just recently, I was reading about the [Army] Rangers in World War II and their attack on Normandy, and, you know, young Americans in those landing craft literally moving right into machine guns and keep going, coming across that beach. And that determination and that sacrifice in what is something beyond frustration is the spirit which has always moved this nation.”

Reed has made many trips, often at holiday time, to hot spots such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia. He said in 2003, “I just feel a very strong draw to troops who are away from home … doing a great job for their country.”

Reed was at his most eloquent about patriotism in the aftermath of 9/11. He told a luncheon audience of an image etched in his mind of a New York firefighter heading up the stairs of the World Trade Center while office workers were coming down.

“He must have understood that he faced a very dangerous situation, but there was no turning back for him. That was his job. That was his sworn duty. That was his life. And he ultimately, I would suspect, gave his life. We as a people and as individuals have been called upon at this time in our history to walk up the stairs, to take on our responsibilities as Americans to ensure that our values and our virtues prevail.”

You’re telling me Reed is going to say no if President-elect Obama, or Clinton, or McCain says, “Jack, the country needs you as Secretary of Defense”?

I don’t think so.

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com