By "force" I am assuming you mean through coercion i.e., threats/violence. However, actions devoid of context become little more than ideas. And even though I am fairly confident as to what kind of situation you are implying, ideas are in and of themselves neither good nor evil (e.g., violence being used for good by a vigilante against a fascist regime or peaceful protests being used for evil by a supremacist organization against an equality law). Furthermore, it is my opinion that this concept of right and wrong is essentially what we as humans use as a quick and easy method of explaining to the vast majority of people important information that is either so complicated that they're too stupid to understand it or so time consuming that they're too lethargic to even bother trying. And although this tends to result in large groups of peoples paraphrasing the poorly worded arguments of some charismatic authority figure, any specific circumstance that we mistaken for right or wrong or something in-between can always be adjusted if and when necessary by future generations (e.g., if new information contradicts any preconceived notions or if there is a paradigm shift in how society views certain behaviors). It is this characteristic of "ethical vicissitude" that distinguishes it as an ideological construct of the human psyche and therefore a subjective quality. In conclusion, forcibly requiring women to cover their faces with veils is intrinsically neither right nor wrong as it depends on the situation (e.g. forcing your newborn daughter to cover her face while in heavily populated city is in my opinion the right thing to do). Additionally, if I were to assume a hostile situation similar to what is reported on the news then yes that would be wrong, but it still wouldn't be objectively wrong.
In some Muslim countries women are required to cover their faces with veils. Is it objectively wrong?
It is objectively wrong for anyone's beliefs to dictate how others should live.
If women want to cover their face for their own reasons, that is fine. I would still be concerned that such an attitude would be born out of false consciousness and accepting a misogynistic culture, but even if my concerns are valid, there is only so much that it is just for me to do. People must change and grow at their own rate.
But for the state to require any dress code is an unconscionable violation of civil liberties and a grotesque imposition on the diversity of human behavior.
Forcing anyone doing anything in the general sense is wrong. Obviously there are plenty of valid reasons to do it, usually to stop someone from forcing their opinions on others or to prevent the ignorant from harming someone or him/herself, but clothing (and generally self-definition) isn't and mustn't be one of them.
The question is a little misleading, in my opinion, because it asks about the requirement being objectively wrong. A lot of religions and other organizations have "requirements" as such, but in free societies people have a choice.
As it refers to the practice in some Muslim countries, my disagreement is with the broader context of the requirement which implies women can be subject to such a requirement being imposed on them without having a personal choice in the matter. This goes against the Enlightenment ideals of individual liberty, freedom of choice and equality that much of the world values as basic to human rights and human dignity.
The requirement is also reflective of other attitudes some Muslim societies have toward the subjugation of women to both men and Sharia law.
This is different than Muslim women in free societies who choose to wear certain attire as an expression of their faith. Whether I agree with their choice or not, it is their freedom to have that choice that is the issue, not the choice they make.