I consider myself more an Eastern now, even though I am not a catechumen and not make the conversion yet so I will answer from my limited Eastern view or understanding. I am only a child of the Faith, so forgive any errors.
1. I tend to think it would have been better had it not been added. It is true it slowly was added to the Creed in the West, but when it was finally a universal thing in the West it became a big issue that has kept a division between East and West. It still is, though the papal issue is perhaps bigger. But that is a whole other duck.
2. Yes, it can be understood in that way, even in the Creed, and so if that is what the West is willing to say, strictly speaking it would be fine, but it would be better to not have it for the sake of unity. But if the West was absolutely insistent on it fine as long as they did not make a big deal of the Eastern view on it. Rome could not infringe on the East's hesitance of using it at all.
3. I do not think it should be for Westerns because it was not in the original Creed, but added, though some Westerns would say it is because they would say, according to their Council of Florence, I think, it is a dogma. I am not sure how one can understand the monarchia of the Father with the Western idea of the Filoque from what I understand of it. I think it creates problems and I think even having it just a huge problem. Why add something to the Creed, even to fight against Arians or other heretics? The original Creed without the Filoque makes the doctrine of the Trinity pretty clear.