I've gotta be honest, I know next to nothing about King or Stark other than what I've read on various boards over the years.

So for those of you who do know about them, any guesses as to what King would be doing. From what little I've read, I'm not sure he's going to be completely sidelined.

But since you're asking for any thoughts/questions, is keeping Stark as CNO really going to change what is probably an institutional/cultural desire to seek out and destroy the IJN? Since this is the war the USN had spent most of the 20th Century preparing for, will changing the CNO really effect the "reason for being" and desire to avenge Pearl Harbor that much? Would Stark be able to avoid institutional pressure to shift resources to the Pacific just because he wasn't the SOB King was?

As for the reaction from the NFB, come on guys. Most of the folks there are happy if you can provide a reasonable explanation for things. I've had some serious eyebrow raising moments, but Mark has always been able to provide a reasonable explanation to satisfy my concerns. With a few notable exceptions, I think most of the readers are the same way.
Fighter pilots make movies, Bomber crews make history.