A study by a Pentagon think tank comes as no surprise that the Obama administration’s plan to strengthen U.S. military presence in this part of the globe is likely to involve increased troops in Hawaii. But even as moves are being plotted a half-world away on this Asia-Pacific strategy, full discussion with the citizens of Hawaii must be a key part of this equation.

Hawaii already stands to receive 2,700 more Marines in the near future from Okinawa relocations, but now comes the possibility of another three-ship amphibious ready group being placed in the Pacific, possibly Pearl Harbor. How such influx will affect Hawaii’s economic and social fabric — how and where will these troops be stationed, housed and assimilated, for example? — are questions that grow increasingly urgent as the U.S. military vision gels.

President Barack Obama issued plans following last November’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in Honolulu for a "focus on a broader range of challenges and opportunities, including the security and prosperity of the Asia Pacific." The irritation of China has not discouraged the shoring up of U.S. military alliances in Asia.

In a new study commissioned by the Pentagon, the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies calls for an additional amphibious group in the Pacific — perhaps Pearl Harbor — consisting of a carrier-like amphibious assault ship, a transport dock ship and a dock landing ship. Together, this group would be able to transport 2,200 Marines, helicopters and Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft to trouble spots.

"The repositioning of forces in the region has strategic consequences that will shape the trajectory of the next three decades," CSIS President and CEO John Hamre wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. "We need but currently lack an operational framework to match that strategic imperative."

That’s a brewing concern. The military influx will surely bring a positive boost to Hawaii’s economy, but how 2,700 more military personnel will stress housing needs, traffic, infrastructure and permanent residential communities require robust discussion and planning on the local as well as national level.

Hawaii’s U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye said in a written statement that already, "appropriate steps are being taken to provide adequate housing for the Marines and their families. Final decisions about logistics and location are still being discussed by the military and the Department of Defense. It would be inappropriate for me to comment until all the details are worked out, but I am confident the community will welcome these Marines and their families with aloha."

Let’s hope that a healthy level of local community engagement is an ongoing part of the equation before "the final decisions" are made.

Some friction between military and civilians is inexorable in the island, but seems to have diminished in recent decades. The economic effects should be positive, not only by the construction of military housing but possible preparation of barracks at Kalaeloa, decommissioned as the Navy’s Barbers Point Naval Air Station in 1998 and turned over to the state.

Panetta has said that the Navy forces will be repositioned from the current 50-50 split in the Atlantic and Pacific region, to 60-40 favoring the Pacific by 2020. Pearl Harbor’s inclusion by CSIS in a list of "increased posture" possibilities for the three-ship amphibious group is part of this repositioning.

While the policy of shoring up military alliances in Asia will continue to be questioned, as it should be, the CSIS study says the strategy "is not to prepare for a conflict with China; rather, it is to shape the environment so that such a conflict is never necessary and perhaps someday inconceivable."

That positive outlook should be emphasized as the U.S. seeks to improve economic relations with China. Hawaii shares in that vision and has a vested interest — not merely as a casual bystander but as an integral player.