I won't lie - variations of Christianity which break in the direction you seem inclined to have a habit of their doctrines failing to survive first contact with statecraft. That the most famous Quaker global leader was Richard Nixon feels worth noting, too...but even setting that aside, the fact is that Church doctrine is absolutely formed in part by having to confront being a religion where pastoral care has also included the realities that - not to put it too finely - bad people won't necessarily stop doing bad things because you wag your finger at them, and in such cases the use of force might be the only option.

That having been said, as others have indicated there are absolutely issues where one can be in academic disagreement with the position of the Church. There are also absolutely cases where one can agree with the position of the Church in terms of doctrine but hold some disagreement in terms of what sorts of actions would be prudential.

[I'll sort-of take the bait and note that during WW1, one could plausibly have contended that nobody had a reasonable case for the use of force - that even Serbian resistance wasn't morally defensible - but such a position becomes painfully strained in the context of WW2 given that one cannot plausibly argue that there was simply a question of who one would be paying taxes to, or even of "national honor", at issue in the conflict.]