I think the question of whether suffering is necessary or unnecessary is beside the point. The question is what the effects are of suffering. If the effects are mostly or entirely bad, the suffering can't be justified. But what if certain kinds of suffering are good, as determined by philosophy rather than natural impulse (the latter having authority over animals rather than people)? What if some suffering teaches us about life and motivates social progress? What if some kinds of suffering indicate that the sufferer understands the reality of the situation?

I see the difference between theory and practice. And I'm sure there are ways of training the mind to be at peace with everything. But just because there's a recipe that produces that result, doesn't mean we should bake that cake. I talk about this in another article on Buddhism. Strictly speaking, basic Buddhism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It outlines a series of causes and effects, nothing more. The assumption is that many people will take this path because they want to end their suffering. As you say, that's a natural impulse.

But where philosophy comes in is in analyzing which recipes are best, according to different goals or ideals. A Buddhist might be like the frog in the pot: he pursues a practice that guarantees a certain result at the end of it, namely contentment, inner peace, freedom from egoic delusions, and so on. But once you're in the practice, you might not be able to appreciate the downside of baking that cake, as it were.

I mean, if we just wanted to end our suffering, why not tranquilize or lobotomize ourselves? Isn't Buddhism the software equivalent of a lobotomy? We destroy the so-called phony self. I'd expect that unattachment to have positive and negative effects. It can end "unnecessary" suffering, but it could also diminish our progressive motivations. You say it enhances compassion, but I still don't see how that follows from authentic Buddhism.