In order decide how to best utilize a (the) militia, there needs to be at least some common understanding of certain expectations and limitations of such a force.  The  militia in the United States primarily having access to a relatively restricted set of arms by military standards necessitates that it is put to use with consideration of the limitations inherent to it.

I propose that a first step would be trying to identify and define the composition and makeup of a very basic building block- the rifle squad.

The mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad is to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or to repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat.

Can we realistic expect most militia forces, likely put together ad hoc in today's age, to be assigned the same mission statement? I greatly doubt it.

Does anyone have ideas on what an appropriate mission statement (Not to be confused with a tasking statement) for a militia rifle squad in the US should be?

Well, first a squad would be comprised of 2-4 fireteams along with potential attachments.

I think it would be best to first focus on the fire team before the squad.

Now as for the individual, a rifleman's job is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy though fire and movement and to repel the enemies attack with close combat.

The fire team and the rifle squad allows for maneuver warfare.  To find, fix, flank, and finish the enemy.

So I suppose to rephrase, if I were to make a statement of the purpose of a militia squad it would be something like:

To function as a force, made of the people, for the common defense of the people.

I think it would be relegated to defensive and area denial operations as well as plain old harassment and local security.

UW, hit and run. Harassment, ambush and interdiction.

If you're thinking in terms of militias, squads and so on, and not cells, you've already lost.

Tag for interest

Which militia group are you in?   Asking for a friend.

What's the purpose of this militia?

kinda important to know it's goal.  If it's to be like the USMC, well, that's not gonna work.

I'm no expert, but it would seem the strength of a militia is that it isn't a conventional, shoehorning it into a conventional military model seems wrong headed.

The only problem is that "modern" squads are supported by mortors, gp mgs, and light mgs.

Irregular forces aren't set up like regular forces. Harassment and ambushes are the name of the game.

First things first.
Bubba needs to drop about 50 to 80 pounds. Be able to sprint, run, and maneuver through adverse conditions and even in inclement weather.

Heavy 6 and the neck beard boys will have to ditch the little Debbie and snacks from the magazine pouches and replace with magazines.

That should come first and foremost, never mind assembling fire teams...

This. A militia in the 21st century isn't standing toe to toe with any sort or conventional force with any reasonable likelihood of success. It may end up doing some scouting or other intel work for a friendly force or will be working as a resistance network. Bombs, sabotage, assassination, and the like.

The militia exists to claim rank, drink beer, and talk about how effective they would be if they ever did anything.

Avoid the tip of the spear.

Attack the hands that wield it.

COC.

This makes more sense to me.  One thing we know is that anyone who tries for a knock down, drag out fight is going to get waxed sooner or later (probably sooner).

The Rev War militia was comprised of all the men in the town/area who drilled together using infantry doctrine of the time.  In their first battle on April 19th they threw all that out the window and went straight to a rolling ambush that rained harassing fire on the regulars from the woods alongside the road.

Absolutely learning good rifle craft and effective use of small arms is still important and could be used to great effect for shoot and scoot type hits but a squad trying to maneuver on an enemy is a recipe for disaster unless that enemy is isolated and unable to call for fire/air support.

How does "Git 'em , boys!" sound?

Yee Yee

I have no idea what we are actually talking about, but I wouldnt treat the militia as a "military unit". It simply isnt.

In the modern day, with standing army like we have now, a militia will have no real use, save for actions taken on home soil. And then, it would be less usable as a full frontal combat unit, as the firepower will likely be far greater compared to that of an invading force (if a force actually invaded the continental US.)

If anything, the modern day militia will be no different from the guerrilla fighters, or possibly Taliban/Hamas/ISIS "fighters". Instead of fighting in the open within formations, they fight dirty using indirect and asymmetric warfare tactics to, if not win, atleast make the occupation/invasion hurt.

This

This is what I would want to see - neighborhoods or even individual streets (like mine!) defended from roving mobs of rioters bent upon looting, burning, assault, rape, murder, or otherwise just general mayhem.  Block off the end(s) of a street and defend it against anyone and everyone.

My model for the bad guys is the 1992 LA riots on steroids - large groups of baddies roving the streets, setting fires as they go.  

Properly placed, half a dozen guys or so armed with M1's and lots of ammo could make quick work of such a mob.

IF a militia is ever needed again- either to repel a foreign entity or to resist a tyrannical domestic one- the fighting will not be anything like you see in movies or videogames.  The enemy will have vastly superior technology and weapons to choose from.  The only way to fight an enemy like that is guerilla warfare.  You don't attack a hardened military installation, you follow troops home and slaughter them in their sleep.

Yes its dishonorable.  But thats how you win.  Do you think the Brits thought we were fighting honorably back in the 1770s?  Honor is a useless buzzword that is used by old farts or young dumbasses to romanticize things.  But reality is ugly and uncaring.  But its reality that matters, not how moving of a speech your priest says over your grave when you die.

To steal a line from my favorite book series: You know nothing of war. War is dark. Black as pitch. It is not a God. It does not laugh or weep. It rewards neither skill nor daring. It is not a trial of souls, nor the measure of wills. Even less is it a tool, a means to some womanish end. It is merely the place where the iron bones of the earth meet the hollow bones of men and break them....

.... So long as you continue to wage war with your hearts and not your intellect, you are doomed.  

first part is a direct quote, second part is paraphrased.  Context, this guy is trying to convince a bunch of stick-up-their-ass knights and nobles that their way of fighting (caring bout honor) is gonna get them slaughtered by guys who don't play by the same rules.

The overall mission of a militia squad (and of the militia as a whole) should be to protect their fellow citizens against enemies foreign and domestic, and to preserve or restore the Constitutional order of our Republic. That's kind of vague though so a few intermediate steps are needed before we can figure out the best "composition and makeup" of a militia rifle squad.

Thinking about more specific mission sets for militia units:

• Offense (attacking the enemy kinetically, using tools ranging from empty hands to nonlethal weapons to rifles all the way to armored vehicles and aircraft)
  
• Defense (stopping an enemy's kinetic attack)
  
• Direct support to offense/defense (tactical reconnaissance, combat engineering, tactical comms, forward logistics, forward medical support, etc.)
  
• Indirect support (planning, intelligence, counterintelligence, comms, logistics, and medical support at higher echelons; public affairs and propaganda; recruiting and basic training; etc.)

That means there's a role both for hardcore trigger pullers (to do the trigger pulling), and for little old ladies (who can "do their part" in intel, propaganda, medical/quartermaster support, etc.). However, there will be varying levels of capability (determined mainly by recruiting, training, equipping, experience and leadership), so not every squad will be able to take on every squad-level mission, and most militia members (and thus most squads) will be on the lower end of the capability spectrum.

Another line of thought: since there's a good chance that the militia will form up in an environment dominated by uncertainty (if not chaos) and, in case of resisting foreign invasion or a tyrannical government, will likely face a better-equipped and better-coordinated adversary (at least initially), it is important that militia squads can operate in a decentralized manner, clandestinely, using hit-and-run tactics, and without having to rely on a lot of regular outside support or even communications with higher headquarters. Like others have mentioned, guerilla style rather than "regular" military style. That means having key capabilities (especially on the support side) organic to the squad or at least attached, rather than at higher headquarters or some faraway log base. So too much specialization isn't good; while, for example, there will be a difference between an offense/defense-oriented "rifle squad" and a non-kinetic "propaganda squad", the rifle squad should also be able to produce and disseminate propaganda, and the propaganda squad has to be able to at least defend itself. At the same time, if the enemy has good ISR capabilities, a militia unit should not get too big since that makes it harder to blend into their environment (whether urban or rural). So there is a balance to strike. And requiring militia members to be jacks-of-all-trades is a formidable recruiting challenge...

On the other hand, if the militia is called out to deal with localized issues like unrest, or if enemy capabilities have degraded, militia squads also need to be prepared to act as part of a larger formation, and may even have to tie in to "regular" forces, e.g. to help their city police force put down a riot, or secure the perimeter (outer cordon) during a SWAT/SOF raid.

Finally, on the practical side, the smallest element of a militia unit should probably not be the two-man buddy team as in our current military, but better a three-man team. This way they can do 8 hour shifts for guard/support/sleep, and if one gets hit there are two to carry him. Plus it's better for deliberative decisionmaking since there's never a tie. And a four-man fire team might lead to the squad becoming too large...

All that being said, going back to the militia rifle squad, if we assume something similar in size to a traditional squad, how about 12 or 15 people, divided as follows so that they can do both their main mission (kinetic offense/defense, from assassinations and small-scale raids to joining in larger operations) but also support themselves to a degree, and cover other parts of the militia's mission set:

• Leadership team (all with AR-15): squad leader (also propaganda specialist), deputy squad leader (also intel & counterintel specialist), comms specialist (also assistant squad leader)
  
• Support team (all with basic AR-15 or at least handgun): quartermaster (food/water/shelter), supply specialist (also armorer & assistant quartermaster & assistant medic), medic
  
• 2x rifle team: team leader (AR-15 with optic), senior rifleman (LMG if available, otherwise AR-15 with optic), rifleman (AR-15 with optic)
• Optional: sniper team (1x M107, 2x AR-15), weapons team (1x HMG or mortar, 2x AR-15), or engineer/demolitions team?
  

Ideally, each team would have their own vehicle - another advantage of the three-man concept since most cars will accommodate three people plus a lot of gear.

But as outlined above, a well-regulated militia also needs additional types of squads, including much smaller ones (three geeks producing propaganda videos, a handful of nurses running an aid station, etc.). But that's for another day - this has already gotten much longer than I thought it would be... Thoughts and comments?

Truth.

And that isn't just restricted to military/paramilitary forces.  We've become very good at taking out top players in dangerous organizations.  Ex:  Pablo Escobar.  Theres a reason that there isn't a central King type figurehead in the drugworld these days.  Anybody even attempting it would go down (assassinated or arrested) long before making it that high up the chain.

Most cartels (both in Mexico and Colombia) these days operate as cells.  Small, highly independent operations designed so they don't become a big enough fish to get noticed by the DEA (cuz locals can easily be bribed to ignore them).  Instead of one unified group, they are just many smaller groups with loose affiliations/alliances with their fellows.  If somebody goes down, he doesn't know anybody outside of his small cell so damage is contained to the greatest extent possible.

Same thing applies to warfighting though.  If this militia acted like actual military, with troops PCSing and making new friends at every duty station, then when one guy goes down, he can take a lot of his buddies down with him.  Anonymity is the greatest strength of a guerilla fighter.

I suggest the show Turn for an idea of what fighting a technologically and financially superior occupying force might realistically be like.

And it should go without saying but all the pro-2A stickers on trucks and shit like that means you'll be the first one rounded up.  And yes, I still have a Betsy Ross flag on my truck.

If the militia is ad hoc, then we're already talking failure right there.  A militia needs to be organized, properly trained, have standards, have actual officers with real authority, be subject to military discipline, be properly armed and equipped, be uniformed, have common standards, have a chain of command, etc.

Swiss militia units have access to machine guns, grenades, artillery, combat aircraft, armoured vehicles, etc.  The just don't take that stuff home with them, but rather, they check it out at their unit's armoury when needed for service or training.  U.S. militia units in the past also tended to issue weapons from an armoury rather than be exclusively "run what ya' brung".  While there was a legal requirement to procure arms for service (which within decades became obsolete, since it was specific to flintlock smoothbores and pre-Minie ball flintlock rifles, and also called for bore sizes different from what soon became the U.S. standard), typically it was inadequate to rely upon that, and States maintained armouries for which to equip the militia, and they sent period reports to the Federal government regarding what they had.

If one is to actually bother with creating doctrine, there needs to be a militia worth a damn.  This means uniform Federal standards, with States raising organized militias of a useful size that are actually armed and which meet these standards, which should be of a sound nature.  In order to raise and maintain a suitable militia, conscription is required, as it almost always is when it comes to the militia, regardless of what country one is talking about.  The legal basis for such conscription already exists, fortunately.

What is this militia for?  Well, you have different core missions.  One is to act as a check against the Federal government if it were to engage in tyranny or usurpation of power (it already does, but let's say it is to deter something even more egregious); it can also form a basis for unofficial resistance if a State were to become tyrannical.  Being part of the domestic system of checks and balances, giving the public the means to engage in the ultima ratio is one of the most traditional functions in free countries for the militia, including the U.S. and colonies in the past.  This includes resistance to regular and reserve armed forces, as well as armed civilian organizations (such as LEAs).

Another core function is defence against foreign military threats acting against any of the United States or their colonies.

It also needs to be able to deal with internal armed threats, such as rebellion, insurrection, terrorism, etc.

Dealing with natural and man-made disasters (including firefighting), providing relief, search and rescue, maintaining law and order, etc. is also important.

Yet another mission is providing security for places, persons, and events (Alaska's militia, for example, is used to provide security for the Iditarod; California's militia helps provide security and MP functions for Los Alamitos AAF and the JTC).

Enforcement of civilian laws is also an important function, and this can include providing manpower or special capabilities to aid civilian LE, dealing with riots and unrest, dealing with civilian LE that are breaking the law, and more.  A great example of when they militia would be useful in this context is the Dorner incident.  Instead of depriving the area of large amounts of LE, making a bunch of LE work overtime at great public expense, etc., the militia could have been used to provide most of the manpower, with civilian LE simply taking the lead with a few personnel, with the rest of the LEOs continuing their usual jobs.  Also, the Constitution allows Congress to authorize the President to use the militia to enforce Federal laws.

Border security is yet another potential mission, to include coastal and air defence.

Guarding prisoners and dealing with prison riots and such that go beyong what civilian authorities can handle is another mission.

In the case of occupation, whether by domestic forces in a tyrannical context, foreign forces, or internal military threats which result in, say, rebels taking controul or territory, the militia can also engage in guerilla warfare and train other citizens to do the same.  Sabotage before it gets to this point is also a potential mission (the Swiss, for example task their militia with destroying things that could be of use to the enemy wer ethe enemy to seize an area).

In theory, if suitably trained, with safeguards to prevent excessive depletion, during a major war like WWII the militia could potentially also serve as the basis for raising an army if the NG and reserves are not sufficient, with minimal time and effort needed for training, allowing for rapid raising of such a force and without the inadequate training which led to much higher casualties than were necessary during WWII.  In essence, it could be a citizen army-in-being.

Older personnel could also take part in civil defence functions, maintain equipment, and such.

So the militia may have to deal with regular, reserve, and irregular troops; insurgents; terrorists; rebels; criminals; rioters; prisoners; armed civilian organizations; and disasters.  The rifle squad in infantry units should be equipped accordingly.  This does necessitate more than small arms.  It would probably be best to stick with the TO&E used by either the Army or Marine Corps for such a thing, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.  Non-infantry units should still have the capacity to act as infantry if necessary; the militia should, ideally, have a doctrine of "every man a rifleman" (like the Swiss do) and perhaps "everyman a grenadier" (such as by utilizing rifle grenades).

I do like the Swiss post-war model in use until they adopted the "Soldier 95" model in the 1990s, which radically altered the militia's character.  It, in turn, is an evolution of a model going back centuries.  War Secretary Knox and President Washington both supported Federal legislation making this model the basis for militia regulations in the U.S., but Congress was only willing to pass the Milita Act of 1792.  In this model, all able-bodied male citizens are potentially liable for service (the doctrine currently via the unorganized militia concept), and with today's population, a certain percentage would be required to serve in the militia from age 20-60 (for privates; officers and NCOs to 65); Knox and Washington proposed giving some credit for Federal military service, and past a certain point, removing any but emergency obligations from veterans, which has some merit.  Those 20-36 (and any volunteers under 20) would be in a first tier, those 36-49 in a second tier, and those 49-60 in the third tier, with officers and NCOs all being first tier but assigned as needed to the tiers of private soldiers. Main maneuver forces would be from the first tier, supporting forces that could be used for more static defence would be in the second tier, and forces engaged in rear support, civil defence, etc. would be drawn mostly from the third tier.

Upon being indoctrinated, a person would have to go to a recruit school, go to a specialist school for technical jobs, and then go through periodic refresher courses, which decrease in frequency and duration in each tier.  Technical jobs would go to recruits already trained or knowledgeable in those fields, or undergoing training or education in them, so that the militia would not need to train them except with regard to those things specific to militia service (the private sector essentially does the training).  No pensions, 401(k)s, etc.  No medical benefits outside of actual service.  Per diem pay for E-1 starts at about what jurors get today, going up based on rank.  Pay is supplemented by income loss insurance (or operating grants for business owners); those who do not experience income loss only get the base pay.  All of this massively reduces personnel costs, according to the Swiss experience.  Something that could be useful is transferring discharged NG personnel to the militia to incorporate their experience.  Providing for local and independent charters could also be useful, with locally chartered units being able to come under local authority (which is how it was done in Britain and to some extent in the colonies).  Small arms and equipment would be maintained at home.

Hey, that also could be said for prob 85% of Active Duty and 99% of NG and Reserves

No.  That is all the role of a standing military and law enforcement.  The militia's role is, to put it simply, to resist the aforementioned institutions should they ever turn on the people/Republic.  Or foreign elements with equivalent functions.

Like Afghanistan?

I would highly advise reading 4th Generation Warfare Handbook by William Lind and LTC Gregory Thiele, USMC

Working within our legal framework right now:  physical fitness, how to operate in a chain of command, medical first response, concealed carry permits, traffic direction and flagging, radio equipment and training, disaster preparedness, et cetera.  Rifle training makes sense to me.

Where we should be: all that, plus squad weapons and tactics training, and riot control.  I think they should be called out to suppress BLM and Antifa riots, as extra man power in border security and forced deportations, or trained in how to bring justice to corrupt government and police forces when called out under the proper legal authority.  It would be very expensive to prepare civilians for frontline military service and a lot of folks have gone into detail about the way a militia should fight against that.  Thankfully we don't have a large chance of invasion, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.  Honestly if we were bad off (super disaster for instance) I expect a sniveling weasel like Justin Trudeau trying to intervene - as nuts as that sounds. There are two types of militias: select and general.  The select are your Minute Man type, but even they are going to be really hard pressed against modern standing armies.  I think we should have civilian ownership of heavy machine guns, mortars, rockets, artillery, armored vehicles, planes, et cetera.

On a personal, private basis: good luck

If you want to learn how this game works, the strategy of organic teams employed during the later years of the Provisional IRA is where to start.

Organization is bad when facing a technological foe. Organic and spontaneous all the way.

A crucial element is white-hat/black-hat self-segregation. The white-hats take no direct action against the foe, do only legal things, but constantly do jobs that will indirectly support black-hats. Observe and report opposition activities online. Provide educational resources. Use legal means to hamper opposition activities, increase operational cost and degrade opposition situational awareness.

Black-hats. Well, they know what their job is. 99% of it is keeping a very low profile until an opportunity arises.

Neither group should ever knowingly be in direct contact.

Holy wall of texts, batman! KAZOW!

Seriously, though...

My point of view is, the people are the militia, and should always have arms and supplies sufficient enough to support themselves. It's not rocket surgery.

Know your friends, know your AO, and keep a low profile.
When the time comes, you know what to do.

We already actively have that

The individual militia members must be able to understand and perform the basic battle drills for small team tactics. As long as they under stand the basic battle drills, they can be used for a variety of missions. Hit and run, squad attack, enter and clear a building, harassing ops, and things like that.

When it comes to sabatage, long range patrolling, sniper/counter sniper, recon, and more specialized areas they would need to be trained in those specific tasks to be effective.

You're talking about training and tactics, like a guerilla force needs it.

Destruction, fear, and chaos are the tools of a guerrilla force.

I watch untrained civilians do that every day unintentionally.

If the militia is any way, shape, or form controlled or directed by state or federal government then it is not a militia in the eyes of the founding fathers. For better or worse, the militia should and needs to remain in the hands of “the people”.

If you don’t think the insurgents and terror groups we have been fighting for decades engage in small team tactics you are naive.

It is foolish to think that even a guerilla force should not engage in the basic, shoot, move, and communicate training.

A system of cells interlinked, within cells interlinked, within cells interlinked.

Within one stem.

I think we're starting backwards.  This isn't a military unit, and certain constants that we can assume with military units simply don't apply here.

We're probably better off starting from the Company as the basic/foundational element (after the basic skills cert/training of the individual)...since, if you can't get 50-100 people reliably involved....there's not much point in squad-level anything (as a squad, by itself as a sole unit, basically means you'll have 2-4 people available at any given time, due to sleep/work/eat/remote activity cycles).

Below a certain number (again, for argument's sake, say 50-100....ye classic "company"), the division of labor required to make life and the organization run becomes too overloaded....and, more immediately, your ability to stand off threats (especially without a fight) plummets to near nonexistence.

"Oh, but screw the chances of getting 50-100 reliables to show and participate!".....if the SHTF, we live and die by our communities.  Especially if it goes on for a while.  Our modern life, for most of us, doesn't put us in a good position to know and be able to count on our neighbors (if your "team" is distributed across a 400 mile radius....that's an issue).  Maybe we should look into creating very localized communities of like-minded folks (who at least agree on "we should probably be able to secure our community, if SHTF").  Sort of like a "Community Safety Volunteers" version of Appleseed?

90% of the militia's "go time" will be spent in essentially static guard duties (making sure unwelcome groups don't infiltrate the town/neighborhood/county, guarding vital supplies/infrastructure, etc), with the rest being some light patrolling (mostly in support of the previous static guard duties).  Putting out small fires, checking on people to see they're OK, transporting folks, etc.

More "Jericho" (hopefully without the Inter-town warfare), less "Red Dawn/Mad Max".

Actually, they are roles that have throughout history been engaged in by militia.

In order to do what you propose they still need to be large enough, organized, trained, officered, well-equipped, disciplined, armed with more than small arms, etc.  The force needs to already exist and be capable.  Organizing it ad hoc once the crisis is underway is a recipe for failure; at best, it imposes many difficulties.

No company-sized element can function against a technological power.

If you plan to just wait until WWIII kills all the technological powers, best of luck.

This

Even a cursory glance of the history of the militia demonstrates that this assertion is false.  The militia in Britain was controulled by local governments and, before feudalism was done away with, the nobles, and could be place into national service to defend the country.  The colonies inherited their militia tradition from Britain.  The militia was an institution of colonial and local governments which also could at times be subject to national service to defend British colonies.  Once the colonies declared independence, they became State and local institutions.  This fact is embodied in our Constitution, which leaves the militia in the controul of the States, but permits it to be called into Federal service for a limited variety of emergencies and to also be Federally regulated (with States maintaining controul over officer commissions, so that the militia could not be taken over by the Feds).  The Constitution, of course, is the product of our Founders, so obviously the fact was known to them.  The militia was never some ad hoc body composed of armed rabble organized by the "people" as they saw fit.  That's a complete fabrication of history.

I wouldn't know.

When considering this angle, it needs to be taken into account that most insurgencies in history have been defeated.

I'm not worried about a technological power (or Da Gummint).  I'm worried about looters, starving urbanites, and being unable to maintain food/water/shelter/meds.  Again, some people are thinking "Red Dawn", when they should be thinking "One Second After".

I'd much rather have a community-based organization of folks who can help maintain local security, order, and infrastructure, when 9-1-1 stops responding and the food trucks stop arriving at Publix...than any fantasy of stay behind guerrillas.

OPSEC

do you speak it?

I respectfully think you misunderstood my point.

A bunch of fudds that are "friends", and get together every now and then, is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about individuals in this country, who have "true" friends, that they treat as family. That camp, prepare, and train as best they can.

ETA: I am well versed in the ways the way the thread is going. I do shoot, and understand commands and tactics.  A lot more than you'd like to believe.

I haven't been there; I haven't done that. I regret not doing it.  Doesn’t mean I can't, or won't do it.

What Men refused to submit their arms, in 1775? Who committed a serious act of destroying property by throwing it into the sea?

I wish you the best and hope you collect many looter scalps.

Optimally, the presence of overt community security measures will negate the need for anybody to get shot.