It’s a sidetrack, but Zinn is wrong, and the US military is wrong, and here is why.
In engaging in some activities it is inevitable that people will die. This is as true for fishing as it is for war, as true for farming as it is for crime. But we most certainly make a moral distinction between the person who eats a crab, knowing that someone died or will die trying to get that crab or some other crab, and a person who intentionally drops a bomb on a civilian area.
Once you intend something, you have a purpose, and anything that forms a foreseeable part of that purpose becomes part of your intention. You may not intend want or desire crab catchers to fall into the ocean and drown, but some will, and if you eat crabs you are accepting that as an inevitable part of eating crabs; eating crabs is your purpose, and everything that must take place in order for that purpose to be realize forms your intention. You cannot simply separate your desire that no one die catching your crab from the fact that people do in fact die catching crabs.
Now, you could say that the people on the boats voluntarily take on that risk. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral for you to supply them with a reason to be out there. If a man gives you a gun and asks you to shoot him, that does not absolve you of blame if you do. Crabs are not offered to you for free, he result of a hobby.
You could also say that we can always do away with eating crabs. But then you would have to deal with farmers being killed on farms, and truck drivers being killed delivering produce, and so on. Ultimately, you would have to take all the risks on yourself, and involve no one else in feeding yourself, and that is ridiculous.
So, if you intend to eat crabs, you must intend that they be caught, and if crabs being caught necessarily entails people dying, then you have intended that people die.
So, I think Zinn is wrong in distinguishing between inevitable and intentional (and accidental). You certainly intended to eat crab - so you must intend that crab be caught, and if you intend that crabs be caught you intend that men go out into the sea on boats to catch them, and you accept that some of them will fall into the water and die. You may not want them to die, and you may regret that they do, but that does not mean that you do not intend them to die, because it is as inevitable and inseparable a part of your purpose as it is for crabs to die.
Similarly, if you intend to bomb a place where civilians may be, and civilians turn out to have been there, and they are killed, then you have intended to kill civilians. The alternative, if you intend to not kill civilians, is to not drop the bomb. So, Rumsfeld and Cheney et al. are wrong (and I think deceptive) when they make a distinction between intentional and accidental, because the accidental in their meaning is not accidental in he usual sense, but a necessary result of their purpose (to the extent that their underlins can and do make detailed predictions of the numbers and even geography of civilian casualties before they happen). You may not “intend” in the sense of “want” to kill a bank guard as part of an armed robbery, but then why did you bring a loaded gun? If you really didn’t want to kill him, you wouldn’t have gone to rob a bank. That is why Power is also wrong - she is saying that if you rob a bank with a loaded gun and you kill the guard, well, then he shouldn’t have interfered - it’s accidental, it’s not your fault. That is wrong.