The word 'unnecessary' ruins the argument, for 2 reasons.
1) God does not want suffering but that doesn't mean that when it occurs (esp through sinfulness) that He can't bring good from it. Remember: All things work to the good for those who love God
2) The word 'unlikely' is totally wrong if you are arguing some probability (which is based on pre-existent conditions) What is before God? and the word "unnecessary' assumes that things will not turn out well.
I would like to emphasize another point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites the words of Julian of Norwich when it explains the viewpoint of the Catholic faith on an argument that never ceases to be a provocation to all believers (cf. nn. 304-313, 314).
If God is supremely good and wise, why do evil and the suffering of innocents exist? And the Saints themselves asked this very question. Illumined by faith, they give an answer that opens our hearts to trust and hope: in the mysterious designs of Providence, God can draw a greater good even from evil, as Julian of Norwich wrote: “Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly hold me in the Faith ... and that ... I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in ... that ‘all manner of thing shall be well”’ (The Revelations of Divine Love, Chapter 32).
Finally, if you believe in Jesus, God Himself entered into our suffering. Your question supposes a dichotomy that no Jew or Christian could accept
