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

Quoted:
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.

Quoted:
Most of human history had no value on life and war was fought all out. You invaded subjugate, loot, pillage, rape, and kill.

That is not approved of by the West at the moment.

Look at how we fight now. We won't target certain locations because it is a center of worship.

Quoted:
Even using modern Western standards of conduct (post-Westphalian), which I largely agree with as a Christian, insurgencies have failed more often than not. The U.S. itself has fought many in the last century and defeated them all except the ongoing one in Afghanistan.

Quoted:
This appears to be a solid mission statement.

Quoted:

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.

Quoted:
Again, that hierarchy and line of communication is exactly how the enemy will track and eliminate militia cells.  I get it, you're european so it's probably harder for you to grasp individualism.  But, no that is a guaranteed way to fail.  Or even be manipulated by the chain of command (if say the enemy infiltrates the upper echelons) to be ineffective.

Mil & LEO's can afford hierarchy cuz they got the logistics and tools to play that game.  Us plebs on the ground at risk from local gestapo types have a lot less infrastructure and defenses in place to CYA

Quoted:
Even using modern Western standards of conduct (post-Westphalian), which I largely agree with as a Christian, insurgencies have failed more often than not. The U.S. itself has fought many in the last century and defeated them all except the ongoing one in Afghanistan.