My misunderstanding, I thought you meant encourage a Western Rite to replace the Byzantine Rite in the West. I am in full agreement with what you said.
No, I didn't mean to suggest that the Western Rite definitely should replace the Byzantine rite in the West. For the time being, I think the Byzantine rite works for the EO because it's the least experimental, most stable tradition you have, and that stability is crucial in developing convert and cradle alike into good Christians.
But as a more long term trajectory for the Church in the West, I think it's a good and necessary question to consider. I've never been EO, so I don't know how this works in parishes, but I would think that one of the struggles of Western converts to Orthodoxy is adjusting to the liturgy. Whether they come from a liturgical tradition or not, it's a really tremendous change. It's a cultural transformation. The "hyperdox" guys who go all the way and try to live like Greek or Russian peasants may not have to do any of that to be Orthodox, but there is a logic in their lunacy: they rightly sense, however unconsciously, that this religious ritual naturally influences the growth and development of the culture of the worshipers. "Becoming Greek/Russian" is a misdirected, but logical, move: what Orthodoxy should be doing is affecting and developing the culture of the Orthodox people in a given place, and over time that culture will form and have an effect on the organic development of the rite.
Has not the authentic, pre-schism, Western Orthodox-Catholic tradition done just that for Western society? Would there be a "Western civilisation" as we know it today without the contribution of Western Christianity (her saints, her fathers, her monks, her divine worship) creating and developing that culture, within which the local Churches' liturgical rites continued to organically develop over centuries? To a great extent, I believe so, and based on that conviction, I think the overarching concern of some to "remain Eastern" is really just another unhealthy attempt to reinvent the wheel. As a short-term policy, it works to provide our people with the stability of "what we know works". But I wonder if, over time, we are not just going to force people to be culturally Eastern at church and culturally Western everywhere else that counts, when it really ought to be that the Church acts as a leaven in society and transforms it into an integral whole. In the short-term, we definitely do that: not a feasible long-term strategy for accomplishing the Church's mission.
I have a friend who was a convert from a Western Christian denomination to EO, and ended up leaving the Church and joining a liturgical Western denomination. For him, the liturgy was the reason. Even if he didn't grow up with a standard RC or Anglican liturgical tradition, he was thoroughly a Western man, and no matter what he tried, Western forms of worship were what resonated with him and enabled him to connect with God. I don't think he rejects anything about the faith, though obviously he has left the Church. But the Western liturgical tradition resonated with him because it "fit" with his culture. I think it's sad that he had to leave the Church in order to "find God". He may be an exception now, but I wonder how many more of him are out there in our Churches, struggling with a liturgical-cultural schizophrenia in order to "man up". How many are put off by how esoteric and "weird" our Church seems? Some people love it, others learn to love it, but many may not even give it a second look after the first seemingly interminable Eucharist. We can criticise such people all we want, and there are a few here that do just that, but all that makes us is smug, not right.
For me, the rule would be not to force a rite unnaturally. As I said to Isa, I see no purpose other than romanticism, and not true spirituality at its root. I see no purpose in reviving liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria now that the "Constantinopolitan Rite" is the norm in those Patriarchates just as I see no purpose in forcing the Byzantine Rite on Western parishes joining the faith or on the Oriental Churches were there to be union. It's artificial and degrades true spirituality that way, the Church isn't a tool for us to act out our historical and cultural whimsies.
I don't know if, for example, Antiochians should be "forced" to adopt the Syriac liturgy rather than keep the Byzantine. But if they chose to do so, it's not like they'd be resurrecting a dead rite. The Syriac Church still exists, still lives this rite, and we are all brothers. Even without a reunion between the two sides, the rite could be learned, applied, and lived. In a reunion, something like this would definitely happen over time anyway. The same would go for all the other ancient Patriarchates, and I dare say that would include Rome, were Rome to 'dox. For a number of reasons, I believe that, were Rome to become Orthodox, just about every Eastern rite practiced in the West would eventually die out, except perhaps among immigrants, within a few generations. I could be wrong, but come on: WR is much easier liturgically, ascetically, etc., and yet was able to sanctify Benedict, Gregory, and so many other Western saints. People don't want 210/365 days of fasting when they can have much less.